ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Farmers (Bureaucracy)

Damian Hinds: What steps she is taking to reduce the administrative burden on farmers.

Elizabeth Truss: What steps she is taking to reduce the regulatory burden of inspections on farmers.

James Paice: Before answering my hon. Friends’ questions, I believe that it is right to congratulate you on a certain anniversary, Mr Speaker, if I am correctly informed, so many happy returns of the day—it is always best to start on a good note.
	In my written statement of 3 November I announced the publication of the interim response to the independent farm regulation task force and stated that the Government’s final response will be published early this year. That is still my intention.

Damian Hinds: I thank the Minister for that answer. What reassurance can he give farmers in East Hampshire that reform of the common agricultural policy will reduce rather than increase the administrative burden?

James Paice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that extremely important question. The only assurance I can give is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are working extremely hard not only in Brussels but in capitals across Europe, speaking with fellow Ministers to try to ensure that what appears to be a more complex and complicating set of proposals are altered to meet the objectives that my hon. Friend, his farmers and, I think, every farmer and farming Minister in Europe want to see.

Elizabeth Truss: Tomorrow I am holding a farming forum in Shouldham Thorpe. What can I tell local farmers about progress towards a single farm inspection regime that would save them time and the Government money?

James Paice: Although I cannot guarantee a single inspection regime, I am pleased to say that we are certainly moving towards a much simpler regime, as I hope my hon. Friend and the House will see shortly when I publish our response to the Macdonald report. We are using the concept of earned recognition, whereby we can trust farmers who have demonstrated their
	ability to comply with regulations and reduce the level of inspection on them, and in other cases we can merge inspection regimes so that one person does them for more than one agency.

Eilidh Whiteford: The CAP regime involves a lot of heavy administration. I have asked the Minister about compliance issues before, but I think that the most pressing issue at the moment is whether single farm payments will continue to provide the kind of support that farmers in the least favoured areas, particularly those in the devolved Administrations, depend upon. What update can he give us on where the Government are heading with that?

James Paice: As the hon. Lady will appreciate, I cannot give any absolute answer because I fear that the negotiations will take another 18 months to reach a conclusion, but there is no doubt that the single farm payment or a form of direct payment, whatever it is called, will continue. I cannot tell her what the exact rates will be, because obviously we have not seen any budgets yet. She will be aware that the proposal we support is that all member states and regions should move towards an area-based system which Scotland has not yet done, so it will face that challenge, as will all the devolved regions. I can assure her that we will do our very best to negotiate on behalf of the whole United Kingdom to get the best deal for British farmers and the British taxpayer.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Mr Speaker, I join the Minister in saying to you llongyfarchiadau.
	With strong cross-party support, Labour introduced the Gangmasters Licensing Authority in response to wide public outrage at the deaths of Chinese cockle pickers in Morecambe bay in 2004. It is an example of good regulation and enforcement, which only last year resulted in 12 high-profile operations and prosecutions and the identification of nearly 850 exploited workers, despite budget cuts. While the exploitation of workers continues, the need for the GLA is as great as ever. Will the Minister guarantee that the red tape challenge will not be used to water down the GLA’s powers and successes and that he will work with us to improve and strengthen it, including through more flexible fines and civil penalties? No one wants a return to the horrors of Morecambe bay or to see the sickening exploitation and trafficking of people by criminal gangs continue.

James Paice: I am sure the whole House agrees with the hon. Gentleman that we do not want a return to that. We are looking at the issue of civil penalties, which he has just described, and at fines. Nevertheless, there is some concern that the GLA has broadened its perspective way beyond the sectors that it was originally intended, rightly, to cover. It had all-party support and still does. I will not deny that we are looking at whether there are aspects of its activities that could be altered, but we will make those announcements as part of the response to Macdonald in a month’s time. The GLA’s core responsibility to protect vulnerable workers must be retained and will be.

Farming (Innovation)

George Freeman: What plans she has to promote innovation in the farming industry. [R]

Caroline Spelman: Innovation is essential to enhancing the competitiveness and resilience of UK agriculture, and we welcome the emphasis in the new common agricultural policy reform proposals on stimulating innovation. In March, in partnership with the Technology Strategy Board we are holding an innovation for growth summit with the agri-food sector. The summit will raise awareness of the potential for growth, and it includes a competition with £500,000 in prizes for small and medium-sized enterprises to develop their innovative ideas. As we speak, the invitations are going out.

George Freeman: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does she agree that, as we as a nation look for ways to develop a sustainable recovery and to support sustainable development throughout the world, British agriculture, science and technology have a key role to play as exports, not least through centres such as the Norwich research park in my own county of Norfolk? Does she also agree that we need somehow to create a web that links up our centres of excellence, currently fragmented throughout the UK, to create a portal for global industry to interact with our science?

Caroline Spelman: I completely agree, and I esteem highly the research capacity in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The Government’s investment of £400 million per annum is co-ordinated throughout the Government, under the UK cross-Government food research and innovation strategy, which is published by the Government Office for Science. The cross-Government and research councils’ programme on global food security will also be a key vehicle for driving that agenda forward.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the best ways to enhance competitiveness is to encourage the export of our product beyond the borders of the European Community? Will she outline to the House the Department’s policies, practices and strategy to encourage the export of our food product to Asia, Russia and China?

Caroline Spelman: When we took office, we made it a priority from the outset to encourage the food and farming industry to produce more food sustainably and to think in terms of opportunities in emerging markets. Later this month, we will publish in an export action plan the results of our work with the agri-food industry in the intervening months, but there is absolutely no doubt that the emerging markets of Brazil China, India and Russia, many of which Ministers have now visited, offer our food and drink industry the huge potential to grow its business.

Roger Williams: The UK is already a successful exporter of meat and meat products, and that is a fantastic way of increasing employment in farming and food processing. I have recently returned from Kazakhstan, where there is a huge and unmet demand for meat and meat products. What is DEFRA doing to ensure that all potential exporters are supported, and that we promote the quality of British meat throughout the world?

Caroline Spelman: As I said in my previous answer, we have made that issue a priority since the very beginning, and the important point is that the “Made in Britain” label on our food and drink sends to consumers throughout the world a very strong signal of high-quality food produced to very high standards of animal welfare, which our consumers expect and we promote, and of food safety, as the systems that we have built are very strong. Indeed, we should consider exporting not just our food but our systems to emerging economies.

Single Farm Payment

Mel Stride: What progress her Department has made on payments to farmers under the single farm payment scheme.

James Paice: In December, the Rural Payments Agency made the highest-ever proportion of payments to English farmers under the single payment scheme, and it was achieved in the opening month of the scheme payment window. The latest figures, as of 18 January, show that a total of £1.5 billion had been paid to 95,702 farmers, and that demonstrates really good progress, but of course I remain committed to ensuring continued improvements in the service that farmers receive.

Mel Stride: I thank the Minister for that answer and do not underestimate the significant progress that he has made in sorting out the RPA, not least because of the shambles that he inherited from the previous Government. Will he categorically assure me, however, that future payment schemes will be kept as simple as possible, so that the significant difficulties that my local farmers in Devon face are not repeated in the years ahead?

James Paice: The assurance I can give my hon. Friend is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will do everything we can to ensure that future schemes are as simple as possible. As I intimated in answer to an earlier question, we are very concerned that many of the Commission’s proposals would actually make the situation more complicated rather than less so, but I assure him of our determination to improve on them.

Denis MacShane: Will the Minister confirm that the average payout is about £13,000 a year and yet we are giving giant CAP subsidies to the richest in the land, such as up to €500,000 to Her Majesty and €800,000 to Tate & Lyle? As we are capping benefits for the poor, should we not cap these agricultural benefits for the very rich?

James Paice: I readily accept that capping has its attractions for those who want to level down the payments. One reason why this Government and the previous Government have opposed the principle of capping payments is that it would simply cause the fragmentation of farms as they break up to meet the new criteria. That would provide jobs for lawyers, but I am not sure t it would do any other good.

Julian Smith: I agree that improvements have been made, but there is still significant work to do on communication with individual farmers. Will the Minister update the House on how much the RPA is costing the taxpayer in administering the payments?

James Paice: I cannot give my hon. Friend the answer that he seeks off the top of my head, I am afraid. I can assure him that both I and the chief executive of the RPA, whom I will meet later today, are extremely determined to ensure that communication improves. We had a problem last year when farmers were told that they would be paid in X month but they were not. That was very bad news, and it is why that is not happening this year. I am determined to improve that situation, because whatever the state of a claim, farmers are entitled to know what that state is.

Littering and Fly-tipping

Annette Brooke: What steps she is taking to tackle littering and fly-tipping.

Caroline Spelman: Changing behaviour is the key on such environmental issues. That is why the Government support the national fly-tipping prevention group and initiatives such as Keep Britain Tidy’s “Love Where You Live” campaign, which I launched with Kirstie Allsopp last autumn. We are cracking down on fly-tippers by introducing powers to seize the vehicles of suspected offenders and are working with the court authorities on increased sentencing.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. I congratulate all those involved in community litter picks, including those at Canford Heath in my constituency. Litter alongside the busy roads that link our communities is a blot on the landscape. What more will she do to empower local councils to take effective action against people in vehicles who are responsible for such littering?

Caroline Spelman: I freely acknowledge that that is a problem. When I jog around the lanes where I live in the countryside, it appals me to see what has been dropped casually out of car windows. It is systematically cleared by the council, but within a very short period it is back. This is about changing behaviour. We have to start in schools by educating children and taking them with us on litter picks, because it then dawns on them what a nuisance this is. In addition, an interesting opportunity is presented by a private Bill that is going through Parliament, which will enable London borough councils to tackle the problem of littering from vehicles by making it a civil offence. We should look at the efficacy of that measure to see what wider lessons we can learn.

Yvonne Fovargue: The Secretary of State has mentioned her support for Keep Britain Tidy, yet her Department has cut its grant to that organisation, causing it to lose 50% of its staff. What impact does she believe that will have on littering campaigns?

Caroline Spelman: Such questions from the Opposition always skirt the reality that we are dealing with a deficit we inherited from the previous Government. As shadow Ministers have said, they would have to make cuts too. This is not easy. As I said at the outset, I applaud Keep Britain Tidy’s initiatives. The point is that we need to tackle this together. This is a classic area where the big society can make a difference. I have put my money
	where my mouth is by helping to launch the “Love Where You Live” campaign. I suggest to hon. Members that that is a campaign we can all get involved in.

Rural Tourism

Andrew Stephenson: What assessment she has made of the benefits to rural areas of rural tourism; and what support she is providing to rural communities to help them secure such benefits.

Richard Benyon: The rural economy growth review concluded that tourism was a significant contributor to the rural economy and that it had the potential for further growth. The Government have therefore announced a £25 million initiative to promote rural tourism and support rural tourism businesses. That includes establishing a new £10 million fund for the rural development programme for England to provide funding for the development and improvement of tourism destinations, facilities and products.

Andrew Stephenson: I thank the Minister for that answer. I am sure he would agree that unnecessary and inappropriate regulations that impede the development of rural tourism should not be introduced. Will he therefore confirm that his Department no longer plans to classify waste from self-catering properties as commercial rather than domestic?

Richard Benyon: I agree that inappropriate regulations should not hinder rural tourism, including self-catering accommodation. However, we also have to face the fact that many councils in areas where there is a thriving tourism industry face huge bills in dealing with the waste that it produces. Given the principle that the producer pays, the Department is considering how to get the balance right. I reassure my hon. Friend that self-catering accommodation is one area that DEFRA is considering as an exception. We will weigh up the matter and make an announcement shortly.

Chris Ruane: The coalition Government often pick fault with the Welsh Government. May I inform him that the Wales coastal path, a continual path around the whole coast of Wales, is due to be officially launched in May? It will promote rural tourism and has already been flagged up by The New York Times as one of the top places to go in 2012. Why is England’s coastal path being left behind?

Richard Benyon: The hon. Gentleman will be very glad to know that I will be going down to Dorset in the next few days to launch the first section of the coastal path, which will be along the Olympic site. We are also working on, I believe, five other sites. The legislation is extremely complex. I would like it to be much more simple, and I am examining ways of making it simpler so that we can speed things up and ensure that the benefits for tourism, health and people’s ability to enjoy our wonderful coast will be apparent sooner rather than later.

Jobs and Growth

Tom Harris: What steps she is taking to promote jobs and growth in the food production and environmental industries.

Caroline Spelman: In the rural strand of the growth review that we published alongside the autumn statement, we announced an export action plan which, as I indicated earlier, will be out later this month, and an innovation summit to support the agri-food industry. We also announced a new £15 million loan fund for community renewables, a £15 million fund for rural growth networks and support for mid-sized businesses to access £6 billion a year of savings available from resource efficiency.

Tom Harris: I think the whole House has a perfect right to know what I had for breakfast this morning. I started with sausages, bacon and egg—only one, of course, because I am on a health kick. In tucking in, I was reassured by the fact that 90% of all the food purchased by the House is sourced in the United Kingdom, encouraging British growth and British jobs. Will the Secretary of State tell the House not what she had for breakfast—too much information already—but what proportion of food purchased by her own Department is sourced in the United Kingdom?

Caroline Spelman: I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands that World Trade Organisation rules mean that we can require purchasing to British standards in Government procurement, but we cannot require produce to be British. We adhere to those rules, and we actively promote Government buying standards involving all Departments sourcing food that is produced to British standards in order to promote those standards. In my own Department, the figure is 18%.

Anne McIntosh: Many people are employed in rural areas, particularly the uplands, in livestock production. Does the Secretary of State share my concern about the conflicting messages from her Department and the Department of Health about the eating of meat, which could potentially have very damaging consequences for jobs and growth in rural areas?

Caroline Spelman: Clearly nutrition is a lead for the Department of Health, but it is quite clear that meat forms part of a balanced diet. I am very proud of the fact that producers in this country produce meat to the highest standards of animal welfare, food and hygiene anywhere in the world. As we have just discussed, we actively promote the consumption of food that is produced to those very high standards within Government and among the wider public.

Mary Creagh: Labour believes that public procurement should be reformed to play its part in our economic recovery and to support jobs, skills and apprenticeships here in the UK. The Government spend £2 billion a year on food and are well placed to support British farmers and food businesses by buying British. I heard what the Secretary of State said and was unclear about the percentage that is sourced from UK producers,
	but her latest figures show that the Department bought less than a third of its food from UK producers in 2011. Why is that, and what does she intend to do about it?

Caroline Spelman: As we have discussed, the situation has not changed since the hon. Lady’s party was in office. The difference is that the Government have placed a requirement on all Departments to procure food to British standards. As a shadow Secretary of State, she cannot encourage the Government of the day to breach WTO rules by calling for British products. That is the distinction. We want to encourage the industry to produce more food to the high standards that we require and to encourage Government Departments and the wider public to consume food that is produced to that very high standard.

Mary Creagh: The Secretary of State is confused. DEFRA Ministers are simply failing to deliver jobs and growth in the UK food industry, which is the country’s largest manufacturing sector. We have seen how unfair competition from abroad for egg producers has been allowed—DEFRA is supine. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), the shadow food Minister, has asked many questions, yet No. 10 has not revealed how much of its food is sourced from the UK. There is confusion across Government: some Departments reply on what British produce they bought, and some reply on food that is sourced to UK standards. Will she have a word and ensure that the next time guests sit down for dinner with the Prime Minister, the food they enjoy is 100% UK-sourced and that it supports jobs in this country?

Caroline Spelman: There is no confusion at all here. Government buying standards are mandatory across all Departments. They require food to be procured to British standards. That is compatible not only with WTO rules but with the rules that cover the operation of the EU internal market—the very basic framework that any Secretary of State or shadow Secretary of State should understand.
	The hon. Lady also completely overlooks the importance of our drive on exports. I remind her that in the last year alone, there has been an 11.4% increase in food and drink exports from this country to the wider world.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State, but questions and answers are, frankly, too long. I am sure we will have a short—that is, single sentence—question from the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George).

Andrew George: I shall do my best, Mr Speaker.
	If British farmers are to compete on the world market, support systems must not simply allow British farmers to avoid creating the ranch-and-prairie environmental deserts that we clearly do not want. Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State believe that the common agricultural policy reforms are currently moving things in the right direction?

Caroline Spelman: Within the CAP proposals, there is an endeavour to balance the need to promote animal welfare and protection of the environment in parallel with
	producing food sustainably, but the important thing in concluding trade deals with non-EU countries—2012 ought to the be the year of UK trade deals as emerging markets offer great potential to our industry—is to have the higher standards to which British food is produced recognised in the wider world and at global level.

Landfill

Rehman Chishti: What steps her Department has taken to reduce the volume of waste going to landfill.

Richard Benyon: Following the waste review, DEFRA has already implemented the responsibility deal on direct mail; consultation on higher packaging recycling targets; funding to local authorities to deliver waste treatment infrastructure; and a new reward and recognition scheme on recycling. We will consult this year on introducing restriction on the landfilling of wood waste. The landfill tax is a key driver in diverting waste from landfill, and it will increase to £80 a tonne in 2014-15.

Rehman Chishti: More than 6.7 million tonnes of food waste are discarded each year. Environmental waste management providers anticipate that food waste is likely to be banned completely from landfill soon. Will the Minister clarify whether and when that ban is likely to take place?

Richard Benyon: The Government are determined that no food waste should go to landfill. Recent figures show a 13% reduction in annual UK household food waste since 2006. That is welcome, but we are undertaking a number of actions to divert food from landfill, including a voluntary agreement with the hospitality and food sector, which will be launched in the spring, and our anaerobic digestion loan, the first of which—an £800,000 loan to an AD plant in Wiltshire—has just gone ahead.

Ben Bradshaw: Is the Minister aware of the close correlation between high recycling rates, low landfill use and local authorities operating alternate weekly collections? Is he also aware that a recent survey by the Western Morning News showed that not a single local authority in the south-west is going to accept the cash bung from the Communities Secretary to reintroduce weekly non-recyclable collections? Will he tell the Communities Secretary that that money could be much better spent?

Richard Benyon: The right hon. Gentleman knows something that nobody else does, because no announcement has been made on which local authorities are accessing the scheme. I can assure him that it is a matter for local authorities; it is for them to discuss with their local electorate how they manage their waste policies, and it is for them to access the scheme, if they wish.

Tim Farron: Does the Minister share my concern that Cumbria county council is planning to close household waste recycling centres in Ambleside and Grange-over-Sands, given that that will increase the amount of waste that goes to landfill?

Richard Benyon: I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. I do not know the circumstances in Cumbria, but I hope that other methods are being put in train by the county council to ensure that the drive for increased recycling continues and to compensate.

Forestry

John Woodcock: What discussions she has had with the chair of the independent forestry panel on its interim report.

James Paice: The chair of the Independent Panel on Forestry informed the Secretary of State and me on 28 November last year of the content of the panel’s progress report.

John Woodcock: But does the Minister accept the central recommendation from the interim report that the public forest estate should remain in public hands? What reassurance can he give the people of my constituency and the many thousands of others who enjoy nearby Grizedable forest that he has learned the lesson from the forest fiasco that marred the early months of this Administration?

James Paice: As I just said, this was a progress report. We await the final report some time later this spring. It is a report by the panel, and we will have to consider the panel’s conclusions when we get the final report later this year. I cannot comment on detail on an interim report.

Graeme Morrice: What discussions has the Minister had with the devolved Administrations about the future of Forest Research?

James Paice: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on an important point. As he knows, the Welsh Government have decided to take forestry into the remit of their own organisation. The Scottish Government are looking at the possibility of doing the same thing. That has implications for Forest Research and, indeed, for certain other Forestry Commission activities. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a definitive answer, because we are still in negotiations, but we will ensure that any devolved Administration who take on a forestry role make sure that any costs on the English commission are properly funded.

Caroline Lucas: The Government were deeply misguided in viewing our woodlands as assets for stripping, and the public told them so. Can the Minister assure the House that this lesson has been learned, by reassuring us that the Secretary of State will not dispose of the 15% of the public forest estate she was hoping to get rid of without legislation before she had to abandon the rest of her disastrous plans?

James Paice: The hon. Lady, as always, gets a bit hysterical. In fact, there never was any intention to dispose of the whole public forest estate. Nevertheless, as we have repeatedly said, all sales, of any scale, are suspended
	until we get the final report. When we get the final report, we will then consider future policy, and not until.

Fiona O'Donnell: Many happy returns, Mr Speaker.
	I hope we can have a more reasoned and possibly less sexist response this time. The independent panel’s report tells us of the value of the public forest estate in terms of the environment, the rural economy and public access. The Bishop of Liverpool told the Secretary of State that she had “greatly undervalued” our forests and that they should not be sold off, but expanded. Does the Secretary of State agree with the bishop? Will she complete the final curve of the U-turn and call off the sell-off of 15% of the estate? Yes or no?

James Paice: All sales are called off until we get the final report. Then we will wait—

Fiona O'Donnell: Suspended.

James Paice: Suspended, called off—I do not mind which word the hon. Lady uses: no sales will take place until the final report is in hand and the Government have digested it and decided on a way forward.

Groceries Code Adjudicator

Alan Reid: What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on the effect on farmers of the legislative proposals in the draft Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill.

James Paice: The Secretary of State has regular discussions with her opposite number in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on a range of issues, including on the establishment of a groceries code adjudicator.

Alan Reid: I am pleased that the Government are introducing the Bill. The groceries code adjudicator will be able to investigate abuses of the market by the big supermarkets. Preventing such abuse is very important to give farmers, particularly dairy farmers, a fair price for their produce. Will the Minister speak to the Government’s business managers and urge them to introduce the Bill as soon as possible?

James Paice: I am certain that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House has heard my hon. Friend’s words. I assure him that I entirely agree with him.

Business Support (Rural Communities)

Neil Parish: What support she is providing to rural communities to encourage enterprise and growth.

Richard Benyon: DEFRA is working with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Communities and Local Government to ensure that measures designed to support business and the economy have a proportionate
	and positive impact in rural areas. On 29 November last year, the Government announced a strong package of new measures designed to stimulate sustainable growth in the rural economy and to help rural businesses to reach their full potential.

Neil Parish: Devon and Somerset are making a bid for £15 million of rural growth network funds. Tourism, farming and business can all come together, along with infrastructure, but it needs to be co-ordinated. I support their bid and would like the Government to consider it sympathetically.

Richard Benyon: I am aware that the local enterprise partnership has made a strong bid, but it is one of many—we are excited by the response—and I cannot say at this stage whether I prefer one over another. Nevertheless, I wish them the best of luck in the transparent process of being accepted as one of the pilot schemes.

Toby Perkins: The Minister will be aware of the importance of the food industry to the rural economy. We heard previously that the Government are doing nothing on procurement to support the industry. What impact does he think that the cuts to the annual investment allowance will have on those businesses and their difficulties investing in new equipment to drive forward the food industry in this country?

Richard Benyon: Support for the food and drink industry was very much part of the process of the rural growth review, because the industry is a big employer in rural areas. Also, the tourism package that we are implementing will permit further input for local food initiatives. That comes alongside cross-Government plans to reduce regulation and improve the framework for businesses in the food sector. The industry has a real friend in this Government.

Topical Questions

Gavin Barwell: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Caroline Spelman: My Department takes responsibility for safeguarding the environment, supporting farmers and strengthening the green economy. Essential to each of those is water supply. In that context, my Ministers and I will focus extensively on water resources over the coming year, seeking to avoid unnecessary supply restrictions. Last month, I issued a drought order to South East Water to protect supplies to customers in Sussex. Next month, we shall hold the next in a series of drought summits, and thereafter the Environment Agency will update the drought prospects report. With luck, holding a drought summit tends to bring on the rain. I saw that it rained this morning; we need a lot more of that.

Gavin Barwell: Three months ago, my local authority, Croydon, introduced a food waste recycling service, which is on course to divert nearly 12,000 tonnes of household waste from landfill. Will the Secretary
	of State congratulate Croydon on its work, and will she tell us what the Government can do further to develop the market for other recyclables?

Caroline Spelman: I congratulate Croydon council on that new development. We certainly see the opportunity for local authorities up and down the land to introduce a waste food collection scheme that feeds into anaerobic digestion and, in turn, produces a renewable source of energy. Croydon council predicts that it will help the borough to increase its recycling rate from 32% to 46%, which, therefore, has the full support of the Government.

Chris Evans: In November 2010, I was one of the 5,000 people attacked by a dog since the consultation on dangerous dogs closed in June 2010. For fear of being called to order by you, Mr Speaker, I will not raise my middle finger to the Minister to show him the 1-inch scar left following the attack, but will he bring forward the proposals on dangerous dogs before the February recess?

James Paice: We are close to finalising a package of measures to tackle irresponsible dog owners—I am very sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman has been the victim of such an attack—and we will be announcing those measures soon. In putting the package together, we have considered the benefits of compulsory microchipping of dogs and extending the current law to cover private property, so that the police can deal more effectively with out-of-control dogs on private property. The final package will cover future Government handling of such issues, as well as other plans to improve standards of dog ownership.

Caroline Dinenage: Bearing in mind the years of chaos and the continued uncertainty about the future development of the Port of Southampton, can the Minister tell me what conversations have taken place with the ports Minister about how the Marine Management Organisation operates?

Richard Benyon: I have had conversations with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) about this. The consultation ends on 22 February. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is a real drive among Ministers, and also in the MMO, to see an early resolution to the matter following the end of the consultation.

Kate Green: Following the Government’s admission that the UK remains in breach of EU pollution legislation, can the Secretary of State tell campaigners such as the Breathe Clean Air Group in my constituency what steps she is taking to address concerns about the impact of biomass emissions on air quality?

Caroline Spelman: We have worked hard with the Commission on air quality. We have brought a number of suggestions to the Commission about how we might help to improve air quality, particularly in urban areas, working closely with the Mayor of London, and also
	with other cities and their local authorities. The question of biomass emissions is part of that, but with technology advancing, it is possible to have a closed loop fermentation process, thereby minimising the impact of any emissions into the atmosphere.

Rehman Chishti: What is DEFRA doing to ensure that the British horticultural industry is not disadvantaged by the Rural Payments Agency suspending 17 producer organisations from the European fresh fruit and vegetable scheme?

James Paice: My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. The European auditors decided a couple of years ago that we were not complying with the scheme, so unfortunately those 17 organisations have been suspended. I can tell him that the RPA is working closely with them to find ways to alter their operations so that they meet the criteria and can re-enter the scheme as soon as possible.

Hugh Bayley: Would the Minister responsible for fisheries be prepared to meet the Yorkshire wildlife trust and other wildlife trusts to discuss the pace at which the Government are moving towards designating marine conservation zones?

Richard Benyon: I have meetings with the Yorkshire wildlife trust—I am a great fan—and would be happy to meet it again. The chairman of the Yorkshire wildlife trust is Professor Lawton, who has talked to me about that and other matters. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are moving ahead as fast as we can. We have a cumbersome process, which we inherited, but I can assure him that we will be able to designate in accordance with the statement I issued before Christmas.

Andrea Leadsom: I know that my hon. Friend shares my view that canals and waterways are a great asset to Britain. In my constituency, we have the Stoke Bruerne canal museum and the Grand Union canal, with all the tourism and leisure activities that that brings. Can he update the House on progress towards creating a charity out of British Waterways and tell us what he thinks that will do to improve British tourism?

Richard Benyon: The museums have been a crucial part of the consultation up to this point. The negotiations with the trustees are at a final stage. They are going well, and I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly. I believe that the new charity will have a huge impact on the use of canals and on facilities such as the museums.

Mark Lazarowicz: The Secretary of State held a number of round-tables in October with civil society organisations and business about the run-up to the Rio+20 conference next year. Can she tell us what specific measures she is taking to encourage those organisations to get involved in preparing the UK position at that conference—and may I ask her, with respect, to give us some specific measures, not a reference to “ongoing engagement” or something of that nature?

Caroline Spelman: I did indeed come straight back from a ministerial preparatory conference in Delhi, step off the plane and brief two large groups—the business community and the NGO community—at round-tables, the reason being that the Brazilian hosts intend in the days preceding the ministerial segment for business and for civil society to have a specific convention on sustainable development 20 years on from the original summit. We are seeing some early proposals from the Colombians on sustainable goals. In the run-up to Rio, we should reconvene the round-tables when there is something a bit more specific on the table, and work closely with both groups, the important thing being to get a good UK attendance.

Henry Smith: The Food Standards Agency recently announced proposals for changes to the meat hygiene charging system, and I would be grateful to hear my hon. Friend’s views on them.

James Paice: As my hon. Friend says, the Food Standards Agency has produced proposals that would lead to full cost recovery, a principle with which the Government agree. However, the magnitude of the increases for some abattoirs is extreme, and we are looking at that matter with concern because we clearly do not want abattoirs to be driven out of business.

John Denham: Further to the question from the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), is the Minister aware that, in Westminster Hall yesterday, the shipping Minister described the five years of delays in Southampton’s port investment as a “cock-up” by the Marine Management Organisation and its predecessors? In the light of that, can he assure us that the MMO will have all the resources and expertise that it needs to deal with the application in a timely manner when the consultation ends?

Richard Benyon: I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. This has been a complex process, because that action was brought by another company. We want to ensure that the matter is resolved as quickly as possible, and I can assure him and other Members that Ministers in both Departments will work with the MMO to find an early resolution to it.

George Freeman: Does the Minister share my concern at the recent decision by the Food Standards Agency to turn down a licence application by Cranswick Country Foods to export to China? The matter was also raised last week at Prime Minister’s questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart). Will the Minister give us some advice on how to bring pressure to bear on the FSA?

James Paice: I have already agreed to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), and if my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) wishes to attend that meeting, he will be extremely welcome. I cannot go into details now, but I must make the point that the role of the FSA is to ascertain whether the abattoirs meet the standards laid down by the Chinese; it is effectively acting as an agent for the Chinese Government in this instance.

Kerry McCarthy: The Minister will know that there is widespread opposition in the south-west to badger culls in our local communities, not least because the scientific evidence shows that such culls are completely ineffective in curbing bovine tuberculosis. Now that the two pilot areas have been announced, what steps will the Minister be taking to consult local people?

James Paice: The answer to that question is in the written statement, but let me repeat what the Government have announced this morning. There are two areas in which the farmers will be invited to apply for a licence. The process from here on is in the hands of Natural England, and it includes a consultation with local people to ascertain their views. That will happen before Natural England decides whether to grant licences to those groups.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Metal Theft

Diana Johnson: What recent estimate the Church Commissioners have made on the cost of metal theft from Church of England property.

James Gray: What estimate the Church Commissioners have made of the number of churches from which lead has been stolen in the last 12 months.

Tony Baldry: Ecclesiastical, the insurance company that insures the vast majority of churches, reports that last year alone more than 2,500 churches suffered thefts of lead, and that the cost of the resulting claims was about £4.6 million. Each of those claims represents a loss to a local community and a distraction to parishes from using their resources for local community life.

Diana Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his response. I know that Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the theft of metal from churches and from war memorials, and we hope that legislation or regulation will be introduced fairly quickly to deal with the problem. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that Ecclesiastical has placed a cap of £5,000 on claims against thefts of metal from churches? If that is correct, what is he doing about it?

Tony Baldry: Ecclesiastical is a private insurance company; it has nothing to do with the Church Commissioners. It has to make commercial decisions about the cover that it can provide to churches, and it has clearly taken the view that churches that have had lead stolen from them present a higher risk in regard to actuarial cover. That is all the more reason for us to find a resolution to the problem of metal theft as soon as possible.

James Gray: My hon. Friend may recall that last time we met I raised with him the issue of metal theft from war memorials that happened to be on church property. Since then, I have had meetings with people at the Imperial War museum, who told me that, of the estimated 100,000 war memorials in England today, only 60,000 are recorded. Will my hon. Friend enter into discussions with the Imperial War museum—perhaps in association with the Heritage Lottery Fund—to find not only funding but volunteers, so that we can complete the registration of all 100,000 war memorials?

Tony Baldry: As we come to the anniversary of the first world war from 2014 to 2018, I am sure that there will be considerable interest in war memorials. In my constituency and elsewhere, parishioners are writing books recording the history of those who took part, and I am sure that the Church would want to co-operate constructively with the Imperial War museum, the War Memorials Trust and any other organisation that sought to ensure that we protect war memorials. The theft of lead from war memorials is a particularly despicable crime.

Mr Speaker: I call Dr Thérèse Coffey. Not here.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission ,  was asked—

Income and Expenditure

Peter Bone: What the (a) income and (b) expenditure was of the Electoral Commission in the last year.

Gary Streeter: The Electoral Commission’s audited report and accounts for the last financial year showed a net operating expenditure of £21.6 million and capital expenditure of £1.6 million. All expenditure was financed by income from the Consolidated Fund. The commission also received income of £148,000 from political parties, arising from registration fees and penalties for failure to comply with the rules on party and election finance.

Peter Bone: I am grateful for that reply in which we heard that £21 million is being spent. Does the Electoral Commission really need seven executives earning at a rate of more than £90,000 a year? Should there not be some cutbacks there?

Gary Streeter: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Electoral Commission will be reducing its core costs by 30% between now and 2014-15. The Speaker’s Committee takes this issue extremely seriously, and it is delighted that the Electoral Commission has come forward with a number of cost-saving measures. It is determined to deliver them and it will deliver them.

Andrew Love: In light of the recent Electoral Commission report on registration, which showed a much larger number of unregistered
	people throughout the country, what consideration is being given to strengthening the Electoral Commission’s role to ensure that that does not deteriorate in future years?

Gary Streeter: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. As he knows, the primary responsibility for electoral registration rests with electoral registration officers. The Electoral Commission has made a number of representations to the Government for enhanced powers to intervene and direct where electoral registration officers are not coming up to the standards that we believe are appropriate in a locality.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Christian Communities (Nigeria)

David Nuttall: What plans the Church Commissioners have to provide support for Christian communities in Nigeria.

Tony Baldry: Lambeth palace is in regular contact with the Anglican Church in Nigeria. Following a meeting with the Primate of Nigeria last year, the Archbishop of Canterbury has continued to be closely in touch with him about the ongoing situation in the region. The Bishop of Durham, the Right Reverend Justin Welby, is currently visiting Nigeria on behalf of the archbishop. The Church of England supports the work of the Anglican communion in working with the Church of Nigeria to end the murder and violence. It is putting its efforts into supporting movements for peace and reconciliation within the northern and central belt communities of Nigeria.

David Nuttall: As my hon. Friend will be aware, attacks on Christians in Nigeria have greatly increased in recent weeks, largely due, it seems, to the activities of the Boko Haram group. Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning those attacks and urge the Church Commissioners, after considering the findings of the Lord Bishop of Durham, to take whatever action is necessary to bring such attacks to an end?

Tony Baldry: I think everyone in the House would agree that to murder people simply for their religion or simply because they are Christians is totally barbaric, taking us back through the centuries. I very much hope that the Government of Nigeria will do everything they can to prevent the continuing murder of Christians. It is particularly disturbing that the person accused of bombing St Theresa’s church just outside Abuja was found hiding in the home of a local state governor.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: I am keen to maximise the number of contributors.

Mark Lazarowicz: I think this is the third month in a row in which the hon. Gentleman has had to answer questions relating to persecution or discrimination against Christians. Does he agree that the issue of persecution of Christians—or,
	indeed, of those of any faith—must now be taken much more seriously by international agencies, by this Government and by other bodies that can play a role?

Tony Baldry: I entirely agree.

Simon Hughes: My borough contains the largest African community in Britain. Will the hon. Gentleman consider whether the Church Commissioners might communicate better to Christian Africans in Britain what is being done by the Church in Nigeria and, indeed, in Zimbabwe, which is the subject of the next question? Will he also contemplate sending a small group of Church representatives who are from Nigeria and Zimbabwe to those countries, where they may be able to build a bridge?

Tony Baldry: The right hon. Gentleman has made two very good suggestions, which I will discuss with those responsible at Lambeth palace.

Christians (Zimbabwe)

Martin Vickers: What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to support and monitor the treatment of Christians in Zimbabwe.

Tony Baldry: Following a visit by the Archbishop of Canterbury to the region, where he and other bishops from southern Africa presented President Mugabe with a dossier of the abuses suffered by the Anglican community over recent years, the Church is very concerned about the increase in hostilities towards Anglicans in Zimbabwe in the past few months. Most recently, on 2 January, local security forces forcibly evicted 80 clergy who had assembled peacefully for an annual retreat.

Martin Vickers: The attacks on the Christian community should be roundly condemned. The Christian community in Zimbabwe will have valued and felt greatly strengthened by the archbishop’s recent visit, but, as the Bishop of Harare observed recently, the persecution continues. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the Church Commissioners, in co-operation with the Government, will continue and, indeed, increase the pressure?

Tony Baldry: I can certainly give that assurance. I think it particularly despicable that it is now necessary to obtain police permission to gather for prayer in Zimbabwe: that is exceptionally sad. We will continue to co-operate with whoever can help us to exert pressure to ensure that Christians in Zimbabwe and elsewhere in the world are free to worship as they wish.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission ,  was asked—

Voter Registration

Robert Buckland: What steps the Electoral Commission plans to take on voter registration in areas where it is low.

Gary Streeter: The Electoral Commission’s research has identified some categories of people who are less likely to be registered, including those in private rented accommodation, those who have recently moved house, those aged 18 to 35, and certain minority ethnic groups. The commission directs its public awareness activities towards those groups. However, it encourages not just electoral registration officers but all colleagues who take a close interest in the matter to do all that they can to deal with the issue of low voter registration.

Robert Buckland: We in Swindon are lucky enough to have dedicated electoral registration officers, but performance across the country is patchy. We have been hearing of the possibility of enhanced powers for the Electoral Commission. How quickly can those powers be awarded in order to ensure that we obtain the highest possible level of electoral registration throughout the country?

Gary Streeter: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. As he says, the performance of electoral registration officers around the country can be patchy. The Electoral Commission works with EROs up and down the land to try to improve their performance, but the process would be enhanced if the Government gave the commission additional powers. When that will happen lies in the hands of the Government, but I am sure that Ministers have listened carefully to this exchange of views.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Marriage

Andrew Selous: What recent discussions the Church Commissioners have had with Ministers on the Government's forthcoming consultation on marriage.

Tony Baldry: There have already been discussions between Church representatives and Government Ministers on this subject, and more are in prospect. It will come as no surprise to the House that the Church of England holds firmly to the view that marriage is a lifelong union between a man and a woman.

Andrew Selous: What reassurance can my hon. Friend give churches in my constituency, which have contacted me about their fear that they may be prosecuted for discrimination if they persist with traditional marriage?

Tony Baldry: The Government have given an assurance that that is not the case. The law states plainly that individual denominations may make perfectly clear that they can continue to ensure that marriage is celebrated between a man and a woman, and the Church of England will continue to do so.

Cathedrals

Sarah Newton: How much funding the Church Commissioners have made available to cathedrals in the last year.

Tony Baldry: Next year the Church Commissioners will give Truro cathedral some £348,000 towards the operation and running of the dean and chapter, a 4% increase. The cathedrals building division will of course continue to look sympathetically on any specific request from Truro for support relating to the fabric of the cathedral.

Sarah Newton: I are grateful for that response to the discussions that we have been having. Truro cathedral plays a vital role in the city, not only through its ministry but through its contribution to quality of life and the local economy. I welcome the support that the Church Commissioners are giving to the cathedral, and I hope that they will continue to look favourably on the work that it is doing in its Aspire project.

Tony Baldry: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Nowhere else in England are the early Celtic roots of Christianity so obvious as in Cornwall, with its profusion
	of local saints. Truro has the distinction of being the first entirely new cathedral foundation since the Reformation. Like other cathedrals, it plays an important part in the life of the local community and the county, and the Church Commissioners will continue to give the cathedral of Truro every possible support.

Jonathan Ashworth: The hon. Gentleman will know that other cathedrals have also suffered from metal theft in recent days; there were reports in the newspapers this week of Manchester cathedral being hit. Given the impact of metal theft and further to the hon. Gentleman’s earlier answer, will he tell us how many churches and cathedrals have applied for support from the listed places of worship grant scheme and whether the scheme is sufficient to meet demand?

Tony Baldry: There will always be considerable pressure on the listed places of worship grant scheme. Let us be clear that there is no way that the Church of England or any other Church can cope with the present level of theft of lead from churches and cathedrals. I hope that the Government will introduce measures to amend the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 as soon as possible to stop that continuing violation of our national heritage.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

George Young: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 23 January—Opposition day (un-allotted day). There will be a debate on rising food prices and food poverty followed by a debate on youth unemployment and taxation of bank bonuses. These debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
	Tuesday 24 January—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the Local Government Finance Bill (day 2).
	Wednesday 25 January—European document relating to EU criminal policy. To follow, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.
	Thursday 26 January—General debate on progress on defence reform and the strategic defence and security review. The subject for this debate has been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 30 January will include:
	Monday 30 January—Second Reading of the Civil Aviation Bill.
	Tuesday 31 January—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Local Government Finance Bill (day 3).
	Wednesday 1 February—Consideration of Lords Amendments.
	Thursday 2 February—General debate. Subject to be announced.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 2 February will be:
	Thursday 2 February—Debate on Network Rail.
	This year marks the happy occasion of the Queen’s diamond jubilee and I am today able to announce that an early celebration of that magnificent anniversary will be the attendance of the two Houses on Her Majesty in Westminster Hall for the presentation of Humble Addresses on the morning of Tuesday 20 March. On a day before then, which will be announced in a forthcoming business statement, there will be a debate on the motion
	“That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of her accession to the throne.”
	I hope the House joins me in looking forward to an important and happy event. On that theme, Mr Speaker, although the score is somewhat lower, may I wish you many happy returns of the day?

Angela Eagle: We all look forward to being able to celebrate the Queen’s jubilee, a remarkable achievement and a very happy reign.
	Yesterday’s unemployment figures were desperate. There are now almost 2.7 million people without a job in this country, a 17-year high. This week, two independent reports predicted that the worst is still to come. One said unemployment would increase to a staggering 3 million,
	the other that it would not fall for four more years, yet all we get from the Government is talk and no action.
	On Tuesday, the Economic Secretary actually boasted that the cost of living was coming down. Over the past year, unemployment has gone up by 17% in her constituency, so does the Leader of the House agree she is now a leading contestant to be this week’s most out-of-touch Minister? The Economic Secretary’s boss, the Chancellor, had to fly halfway around the world to Hong Kong before he felt he had sufficient distance between himself and his Back Benchers to announce that the Government would be willing to increase International Monetary Fund funding. While I understand why he might have wanted to make such an announcement 6,000 miles away, would it not have been better if he had made a statement to this House?
	On 6 December, the House voted overwhelmingly to continue a debate on the economy in Government time. Given that the parliamentary managers are yet again struggling to fill the Commons timetable as a consequence of their gross mishandling of their legislative agenda, will the Leader of the House now bow to the clearly expressed view of this House by letting the Chancellor know that it is safe to come home and by finding time for a debate on the Government’s mishandling of the economy?
	Will the Leader of the House assure me that if we finally get an announcement on tackling executive pay, the Business Secretary will make it to this House first? It is unacceptable that he appears to have lined up a speech to a think-tank next week to make this announcement. He should make a statement to this House and then give a speech to a think-tank, not the other way around. With bankers set to award themselves massive bonuses while millions of hard-pressed families are struggling to make ends meet, we need Government action now, not promises of action at some point in the future or lectures to think-tanks.
	Up to 100,000 people died during the famine in the horn of Africa last year. The House will have seen the report that found that this tragedy could have been averted if the international community had responded faster. There is now a growing food crisis in the west of Africa. Will the International Development Secretary make a statement to reassure the House that mistakes made in the horn of Africa last year are not being repeated in the west of Africa this year?
	This week, the Government announced a commission into the so-called West Lothian question. Rather than following the cross-party approach we took when setting up the Calman commission and the current Welsh Secretary took when establishing the Silk inquiry—both of which were on devolution matters—the Government have, outrageously, chosen to proceed without any input at all from opposition parties. It is difficult to conclude anything other than that this is yet again constitutional tinkering to secure partisan electoral advantage. Will the Leader of the House explain why cross-party agreement was not even sought?
	Tomorrow there is legislation before this House—not Government legislation, needless to say—to clamp down on metal theft. Will the Government confirm that they will now support this important piece of legislation, given the growing problem, as highlighted in Question Time?
	We learned from yesterday’s Telegraph that the Government are to launch a consultation on building a new airport in the south-east. Had the Transport Secretary announced it last week when she was before this House, Members would have had the opportunity to question her. According to media reports, a Conservative source said there were timetabling problems because “at the last minute” the Deputy Prime Minister “stepped in to block” that. Coalition infighting may explain the discourtesy to this House, but it does not excuse it. Will the Leader of the House tell us how much this consultation will cost?
	I am sure the Education Secretary deeply regrets the fact that coalition tensions mean his confidential Cabinet correspondence has been leaked to the media. Will the Leader of the House confirm that a leak inquiry has been set up? Is not the leaking of Cabinet correspondence the latest sign of growing coalition disarray? The Liberal Democrat leader now spends his time doing interviews claiming credit for allegedly blocking Conservative proposals. In turn, an ally of the Prime Minister is quoted in the Telegraph saying of the Deputy Prime Minister:
	“No one has noticed, but there isn’t much about him that is British.”
	What sort of Government do we have when the announcement of important infrastructure proposals is delayed by coalition infighting, and when the Transport Secretary then announces that policy—in the media—the Deputy Prime Minister briefs the media that he is going to veto it anyway? This is a complete and utter mess.
	We learned from Now magazine that the Prime Minister and his wife have a “date night” each week. Given coalition tensions, perhaps Conservative Cabinet Ministers should have date nights with their Liberal Democrat colleagues. May I suggest that the Education Secretary might want to go on a date with the Energy Secretary to discuss the leaking of Government correspondence? I can understand that no Minister would want to ruin their evening by spending it with the Deputy Prime Minister, but perhaps someone could take out the Business Secretary to remind him that since joining the Government he has abandoned everything he said on the economy when in opposition.
	Finally, Mr Speaker, I am reluctant to draw attention to your birthday in case the Prime Minister now starts poking fun at you because of your age, but happy birthday—I hope you have a good one.

George Young: There will be an opportunity to debate unemployment on Monday, as I note that the Opposition have allocated half a day to it. I just make the point that youth unemployment increased by 40% when world trading conditions were benign and, obviously, it is a challenge for any Government, particularly one tackling a huge deficit, to deal with youth unemployment when world conditions are less benign than they were, but the Government will be happy to set out on Monday the steps that we are taking—the youth contract, the Work programme, and the initiatives on apprenticeships and work experience, among others—to bring down youth unemployment.
	This country is a good supporter of the IMF, and there are no firm proposals from the IMF at the moment to increase contributions. Our position has not changed: we have been prepared to provide resources in the past
	and we would be willing provide them in the future if a strong case is made, but we have made it absolutely clear that the IMF cannot lend money to support a currency and, of course, we would have to come back to Parliament if the request took the Government over the limit that has been voted on.
	On legislation, and returning to what the shadow Leader of the House has said in past weeks, I hope she will welcome the fact that a lot of legislation is to be dealt with in the two weeks that I have just announced, with three days of it in the second week. On debating the economy, I just remind her that we had no debate on the pre-Budget report in one year when her Government were in office and had sole control of the timetable. Indeed, we went for months without any debate on the economy under a Labour Government. On the Business Secretary, he is well aware of the ministerial code, which of course he will observe; all important announcements of policy will be made, in the first instance, to the House of Commons.
	I am surprised that the shadow Leader of the House raises the matter of bank bonuses, because the Labour party did absolutely nothing about them when it was in government. We have already had the Merlin agreement last year, which capped cash bonuses at £2,000, and she must await further announcements about what we plan to do about executive pay.
	On what the shadow Leader of the House said about Somalia, my view is that this country led the way in the support that we extended to Somalia and that if other countries had responded as proactively as we did, the harm might have been reduced. However, I will pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development the point that she made about learning any lessons.
	The coalition agreement contained a clear commitment to establish a commission to look at the West Lothian question. That question was one of the many unanswered constitutional issues we inherited from the outgoing Government. On metal theft, the hon. Lady must await the views of the Government, which will be set out in response to the debate tomorrow on a private Member’s Bill.
	On airports, the coalition parties are united in rejecting a third runway at Heathrow—the Labour party backed that runway in government but they have now joined us in opposing it in opposition. No decisions have been taken on the estuary airport. As the Chancellor made clear in his autumn statement,
	“we will explore all the options for maintaining the UK’s aviation hub status, with the exception of a third runway at Heathrow.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 806.]
	We will consult on an overarching sustainable framework for UK aviation this spring and publish a call for evidence on maintaining effective UK hub airport connectivity.
	On relationships within the coalition, my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House and I are at one; we are as brothers in our approach to the issues for which we have responsibility, and not a cigarette paper could be found between us on any issue.

Claire Perry: On Saturday, I was pleased to welcome the current and former chairman of the all-party angling group to my constituency where
	we waded—or rather, walked, because we did not have to wade—down the dry river bed of the River Kennet, which is a world famous chalk river. Could we have a debate on the water White Paper, which sets out proposals for changing abstraction regimes, as we as MPs would like to know more about the detail?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour for the point she makes and for her interest in angling. I cannot promise a debate on the White Paper in the very near future, but she might like to apply for a Backbench Business Committee or Westminster Hall debate on what is one of the most popular recreational activities in the country.

David Wright: The Government have made an announcement on High Speed 2. They are also hinting at having a new airport in the Thames estuary, which the Leader of the House has already mentioned. What local people in Telford want is improved rail services connecting to Birmingham so that they can connect to High Speed 2. May we have a debate in the House on local rail services?

George Young: I announced a few minutes ago that there would be a debate on Network Rail, which I very much hope will provide an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to pursue his legitimate constituency interests. We will set out the infrastructure investment that we are putting into the railway system, including new carriages, investment in new lines and increases in capacity, which I hope he will welcome.

Bob Russell: The Royal Bank of Scotland was bailed out with billions of pounds of public money, saving thousands of RBS jobs, presumably including those of the people who currently run it. However, RBS is pushing Peacocks department stores, which account for 700 shops and 10,000 jobs, towards administration. Is it not the role of the Government to intervene, when they own the bank, and can we have a debate on that?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern about the future of Peacocks, but I would be cautious about the Government intervening and trying to micro-manage lending decisions, which are best taken by the banks. There will be an opportunity to raise the issue of bank bonuses on Monday, but I shall draw his concerns about the future of Peacocks to the attention of the Business Secretary to see whether there is any action we can take to minimise the pain.

Keith Vaz: May I declare my interest and remind the Leader of the House that 80% of amputations due to diabetes could be prevented and that 24,000 people with diabetes died last year because they could not manage their condition properly? May we have an urgent statement from the Government about what their diabetes strategy will be in the new health reforms?

George Young: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this important issue to the House’s attention. We do have a strategy for trying to reduce the harm that
	is done by diabetes. I think it would be an appropriate subject for a debate in Westminster Hall, where we could set out our strategy in more detail, but he is right—there is a growing incidence of diabetes and there is an imperative to take action to try to minimise the harm it does.

John Redwood: May we have an early debate on who speaks for England and who should make decisions for England in an increasingly devolved United Kingdom?

George Young: I understand my right hon. Friend’s concern. We announced on Tuesday the establishment of the West Lothian commission, which will look at a range of options. For example, with issues that affect only England and Wales, one option would be that only English and Welsh MPs voted on such matters. In my view, that would be an appropriate rebalancing of the constitution to take account of the fact that in Scotland they have their own Parliament in which issues are resolved on which English MPs cannot vote. It seems somewhat perverse that Scottish MPs can vote on those very same issues when they apply only to England.

Jim Sheridan: May I welcome the Government’s announcement that during these difficult economic times no taxpayers’ money will be used to fund any building of the royal yacht? May I also ask the Leader of the House to assure hon. Members that that will include publicly owned bodies such as the banks, either directly or indirectly?

George Young: The Government have made their position clear. We think the offer is generous but we have made it absolutely clear that no taxpayer money can be involved. I cannot add to what has already been said.

Charles Walker: May we have an urgent debate on the conduct of a Mr Scott Venning and his company City Watch parking, a seemingly criminal organisation with shaven-headed enforcers who lift people’s cars and then extort money to return them?

George Young: My hon. Friend uses robust language. I know, because he has raised the subject before—it is a matter of deep concern—that he knows that the Protection of Freedoms Bill is currently in another place, and that when the Bill hits the statute book, hopefully in May, it will be an offence to clamp on private land and incidents of the sort that my hon. Friend has mentioned will simply be outlawed. In the meantime, I can only suggest that he uses his eloquence to try to get redress for his constituent from the offending company.

Mr Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) has not got anything against people with shaven heads, or who happen to have less hair than other people have, but we will leave it there.

Graham Jones: Following on from the comments by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), I am happy to report that there is an addition to the big society, and that is the Hannah Mitchell Foundation for the devolution of the north of England. Given the Government’s austerity programme,
	which is attacking people in the north of England, and the effect that is having, we are seeing a north-south divide, and it is becoming a major issue. Will there be a debate in Government time on the devolution of England, and the opportunity for northern England to seek the same position that Scotland and Wales have?

George Young: I remind the hon. Gentleman that his Government went there and tried to sell devolution to the north-east. There was a resounding humiliation for that Government in the referendum on that. I detect no appetite at all for the sort of initiative that he mentions.

Tony Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if ever there are proposals before the House to change the status of marriage, any such votes will be on a free vote?

George Young: The issue of the guidance that may be given to my hon. Friends in the event of a vote would be a matter for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, another of my brothers. My hon. Friend is way ahead of the game on this, in that we are about to consult in March on a range of options, including equal civil marriage. At the end of that consultation period there will then be proposals and possibly legislation, and it will be at that point that decisions will need to be taken about the status of any votes on that legislation.

Luciana Berger: In the aftermath of last summer’s disturbances, the Prime Minister said that his Government would help affected businesses to get up and running quickly. However, a complex and bureaucratic application process has left nine out of 14 businesses in and around my constituency still waiting and unable to restock effectively. May we have an urgent statement, updating the House on those businesses still waiting for compensation, and what the Government are going to do to help our small businesses, which are the lifeblood of our economy?

George Young: The hon. Lady is right that the Government made funds available. There was one source of funds, through the police authorities under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, and there was another source of funds, I think through the Department for Communities and Local Government. I will pursue the issue that she raises and unblock any hindrance in funds flowing to her constituents, perhaps retailers, who have been adversely affected, and see whether we can make fast progress. It is our view that they are entitled to compensation; we want them to get it.

David Tredinnick: Mr Speaker, may I also wish you a happy birthday? It is an easy date for me to remember because it is also my birthday.
	Does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House recall me raising, in October 2010, the situation in Parliament square, when I described it as
	“a no-go area surrounded by a campsite”.—[Official Report, 24 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 256.]?
	Will he update the House on progress in clearing Parliament square?

George Young: I commend my hon. Friend for the initiative he has taken over many years to ensure that Parliament square is restored to its dignity. Following
	the passage of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, powers were available to the Metropolitan police to clear the encampment, and the House may have noticed that, earlier this week, the majority of the tents were removed using the provisions in that Act. One encampment remains, which is subject to a High Court injunction, which I think will be addressed in a few weeks’ time.
	I very much hope that before too long we can restore Parliament square to its former glory. It is at the centre of the finest capital city in the world, with Westminster abbey, the Houses of Parliament and Whitehall, and I very much hope that we can make the space available to people who have been denied that space by the activity over recent years. Finally, I would say that we have also restored the historic right to protest, as long as those protesting go home at the end of the day.

Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) and I wish him a happy birthday too.

David Anderson: This morning we have seen yet again the contempt that the Secretary of State for Health has for professional people working in the health service, as shown by his comments that opposition to NHS reforms is just about spite regarding the pension agenda. May we have a debate in the House about who really supports NHS reform and who does not? May we also, in that debate, discuss why the Secretary of State has so much contempt for nurses and midwives and other professionals in this country?

George Young: That is a travesty of the views of my right hon. Friend, who has on many occasions paid tribute to the work that nurses and doctors do within the NHS.
	On the issue of pensions, our view is that a generous offer has been made to doctors and consultants. The average consultant retiring at the age of 60 will get a pension of £48,000 and a lump sum of £143,000, worth about £1.7 million in a pot. We think that is unsustainable, and we want a system that links pensions to lifetime earnings rather than final salary—a reform that I hope the hon. Gentleman would welcome.
	On the issue of NHS reform, the hon. Gentleman knows that there will be an opportunity for a further debate when the other place has finished its consideration of the Health and Social Care Bill. We believe that that reform is essential and that it is in doctors’ and nurses’ interests, because they are put at the centre of clinical commissioning.

William Cash: The Leader of the House knows that there will be a summit on European matters towards the end of the month—probably 30 January; my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) raised the matter last week. The European Scrutiny Committee has unanimously called on the Government to provide for a debate before that summit, on the Floor of the House, for a minimum of three hours. The last time I asked this question, I was told it should go off to Westminster Hall or should be dealt with by a Backbench Business Committee resolution. That is quite inappropriate; this is a serious matter,
	affecting the whole of the United Kingdom. It needs to have a general debate on the Floor of the House. Can we please have one?

George Young: I do not agree with my hon. Friend that it is inappropriate to ask him to go to the Backbench Business Committee and ask for time in this Chamber for a debate on the European Council. That is precisely the recommendation that was made by the Wright Committee at paragraph 145. It explicitly says that the two days for the pre-European Council debates should be handed over to the Backbench Business Committee and it should find the time for them. My hon. Friend will have heard that the Government have made time available to the Backbench Business Committee. I am not sure whether he approached the Committee with a subject for the debate in the weeks that are forthcoming, but that is the appropriate way to get debates on the European Council, as outlined by the Wright Committee, whose recommendations we have implemented.

Robert Flello: May we have a debate on how local residents can be protected from bad-neighbour businesses, such as European Metal Recycling in my constituency, whose latest trick, flouting planning law, is to build a wall behind people’s homes of shipping containers three high, which it is welding together to make a permanent structure? That is the latest thing that it has done. May we have a debate about bad-neighbour businesses?

George Young: I am sorry to hear of the problems faced by the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. It is not clear whether the wall that the company has built had planning permission.

Robert Flello: It did not.

George Young: If it has not, enforcement action is available: the local authority may ask that it be removed, and if it is not, remove it and then charge the business. I hope the hon. Gentleman will follow that initiative.
	We have passed through the House the Localism Act 2011, which gives more powers to local communities to influence the environment in which they live. I hope the hon. Gentleman would welcome the increased planning powers available to local government.

Brandon Lewis: In Great Yarmouth, we have seen a vast increase in the number of apprenticeships in the past 12 to 18 months. That has been a great asset in trying to match the skills available with the demands of industry in the area. May we have a debate to highlight the importance not just of apprenticeships but of vocational training in developing skill sets required by industry?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I hope he may catch Mr Speaker’s eye on Monday, when there will be an opportunity to debate the subject. In our first year we delivered more than double the number of extra apprenticeships we promised, and the Chancellor announced in May our ambition for 50,000 extra post-19 apprenticeships, funded from in-year spending
	cuts in other areas. We are keen to develop the apprentice agenda, and I welcome what my hon. Friend said about his constituency.

Valerie Vaz: I wish you a happy birthday, Mr Speaker—and my colleague on the Health Committee, the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick). You share this day with the first anniversary of the introduction of the Health and Social Care Bill—a day that will obviously live in infamy. We need an urgent debate on what is going on on the ground, because we now have credit agencies involved in the health service, 2,000 job losses—according to the Royal College of Nursing—and the Information Commissioner not being able to release the appeal from the Government into the risk assessment. We need the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House to answer questions as to why he is usurping the will of Parliament and putting through these reforms before the Act has been passed.

George Young: I will bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the request that the hon. Lady has made about information—I think that was the gist of her question—and of course I will pass that response on to her. The Bill has passed through the House and, as she knows, once a Bill gets a Second Reading certain actions are allowed to proceed. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has done nothing that is in any way inappropriate. As I said, there will be an opportunity to debate the Bill when it returns to the House, hopefully in the not-too-distant future.

Mark Lancaster: May we have a debate on child abduction? International rates of child abduction are up 10% this year. Is the Leader of the House aware of the anomaly in the law whereby the abduction of a child to a foreign country is a criminal matter, but if a parent initially gives permission for the child to go on holiday but the child never returns it is a civil matter with little protection? May we address this loophole?

George Young: My hon. Friend is right that the number of abduction cases is growing. If a child is abducted to a country that has not signed up to The Hague convention, there are real difficulties getting them back. I will draw the possible loophole to the attention of the Home Office and my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor to see whether action can be taken to close it.

Gregg McClymont: Many of my constituents work in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs office in Cumbernauld, the largest in the country, and are worried about what they perceive to be the creeping privatisation of HMRC through the introduction of private providers in its call centres. May we have a debate on whether bringing private providers into the call centres is sensible?

George Young: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the previous Government used private agencies in public sector organisations where that was the right way to proceed, and I am sure that he would support measures to reduce costs within HMRC and make it more efficient. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his team will
	be here on 24 January for Treasury questions, when the hon. Gentleman might have an opportunity to ask his question again.

Edward Leigh: Further to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), I asked the same question last week and the Leader of the House replied in his best insouciant manner, but I am afraid that that is not good enough. Today we will have a debate on the connecting Europe facility, which is one part of the matter, but he is denying Members the opportunity to discuss these issues, as other countries do, on the Floor of the House before the Prime Minister goes to the European summit. It is not good enough for the Leader of the House to tell us to go to the Backbench Business Committee. I have been to the Committee, but it has no time and will not give us the debate—it is down to him. This is a major issue, and the House is not overstretched. Imagine if someone had asked for a debate on German rearmament in 1930s and the then Leader of the House had said, “Oh, just go off to Westminster Hall or the Backbench Business Committee.” It is ridiculous. These are important matters that should be in a central debate.

George Young: My hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that there are regular debates on Europe in the Chamber—there is one today and I have announced another for next week. If I may say so, he glosses over the whole thrust of the Wright Committee’s recommendations, which was that the Government should provide time for Government legislation and no longer control exclusively the diet of the House. The time we used to have for the debate he refers to has been handed over to the Backbench Business Committee. That empowers the House by giving it a power that has been taken from the Government. It is for the Committee to decide whether to give priority to my hon. Friend’s request or to those of other Members. I am not sure whether he has been to the Committee recently to make his request, but ultimately it must decide whether to accede to it.

Stephen McCabe: The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), told a Committee of this House earlier today that Birmingham city council is cash-rich and the Conservative/Lib Dem administration running the city is sitting on millions of pounds. The administration says that the budget is dire, which is why it has been forced to make such savage cuts in services. They cannot both be right. May we have an urgent statement so that we can uncover the truth about the council’s financial circumstances?

George Young: I am reluctant to get involved in a west midlands turf war between my hon. Friend the Minister and the local authority. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to raise the matter again during Communities and Local Government questions. In the meantime, I will ask the Minister whether he would like to respond.

Andrew Selous: May we have a debate on nursing care in the NHS, a subject recently raised by the Prime Minister? Most nurses do an excellent job, but sadly some patients have distressing
	experiences. Does the Leader of the House agree that, rather than focusing on structures, we need to concentrate on high standards of care closely supervised by ward sisters?

George Young: My hon. Friend might know that the Prime Minister recently made a speech in which he outlined the steps the Government are taking to remove red tape and bureaucracy so that nurses can devote more time to patient care. My hon. Friend’s suggestion is very much in line with the Government’s policy of enabling nurses to use their skills to drive up the quality of care in our hospitals.

Hugh Bayley: On Tuesday the Secretary of State for Defence announced that 4,100 servicemen and women will be made redundant. Why was an oral statement not made to the House so that we could question him on the implications of the decision? Will the Leader of the House ask him to publish before next week’s debate a statement on the implications for Yorkshire regiments, such as the Green Howards, and others in the Army’s key recruiting grounds in Yorkshire and the north-east of England?

George Young: I believe that the announcement was made in an appropriate way in a written ministerial statement, a procedure for which I think we can find precedents. I will ensure that by the time we have the defence debate that I announced a few moments ago Defence Ministers will have the detailed information he has asked for and, if possible, will let him have it before the debate.

Stephen Hammond: I agree with my right hon. Friend that our country’s reaction to the drought in Somalia was impressive, but it was the worst drought for six decades, thousands of people have been displaced, millions have been left starving and the threat to international trade and security in the region is ever-increasing. May we have a debate on Somalia on the Floor of the House?

George Young: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Despite the best efforts of the African Union, the United Nations and international diplomacy, Somalia continued to slide backwards. He might know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has convened an international conference on 23 February, to which he has invited representatives of 40 countries and international organisations, in order to identify measures that will restore Somalia to health and help address some of the problems my hon. Friend mentions, such as poverty, the threat to international trade and the threat from international terrorists now based in that country. I have noted his request for a debate.

Paul Flynn: Will next week’s defence debate concentrate on the paramount need to reduce tension between the west and Iran in order to avoid this country stumbling into another avoidable war, and may we explain to those responsible that murdering Iranian scientists can have only one outcome: making war more likely?

George Young: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman couched his remarks in a suitable way they would be perfectly in order in next Thursday’s debate. I have
	noted his views. There is a real threat to the rest of the world from Iran possessing nuclear weapons, and I think that it is right that a range of responses is available.

Matthew Offord: Given the concern expressed in the House about the protection and welfare of children, may we have an urgent statement from the Government on the preposterous actions of the Turkish authorities, who have issued an international arrest warrant for Sarah, Duchess of York, for daring to make a television documentary about looked-after children in that country?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue. It is not the Government’s usual policy to comment on individual cases, but the Home Office confirms that it has received from Turkey a formal request for mutual legal assistance concerning Sarah, Duchess of York. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Public Accounts Committee learned yesterday that the NHS strategy for people with long-term conditions was ineffective for those with neurological conditions and not good value for money. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that before the Health and Social Care Bill, which will make that pattern the usual one for particular conditions, returns to the House we learn whether that issue is one of the things on the risk register that the Government are seeking to block?

George Young: I will raise the hon. Lady’s concerns with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. She will know that we plan to publish a White Paper on long-term care in the spring, which I hope will drive up the quality of care. I will pass her request for data on to my right hon. Friend.

Karen Bradley: Last week I paid a visit to the Leek campus of PM Training, a vocational training organisation providing skills and vocational training for the young people furthest from the workplace. One of the keys to its success is its zero-tolerance policy on attendance, so will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on how the Government and others can take action to encourage attendance at school and prevent truancy in order to give all our young people the best start in life?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises the important issue of truancy in schools. We have reduced the threshold at which a pupil is defined as persistently absent from 20% of time missed to 15%, ensuring that schools act earlier to deal with absence; and we are looking at the range of sanctions that can be placed on parents of truanting children, with a view to introducing higher fines and a more consistent application of sanctions. I hope that goes in the direction that my hon. Friend has indicated.

Grahame Morris: I have always thought that the Leader of the House is the most reasonable of the brothers on the Government Front Bench. Does he agree with me, my right hon. Friend the
	Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and several Members on both sides of the House that existing firearms legislation, which is scattered among 34 Acts of Parliament, needs codifying, and that, in view of the terrible events in my constituency on new year’s day, it would be timely to have a debate on the merits of such a course of action?

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and understand his constituency concern. The Home Affairs Committee recently produced a report on the issue, but it did not recommend a reduction in the age at which people can hold a shotgun licence. There were other recommendations in the report, however, and I will ensure that the Government not only respond to it, if they have not already done so, but deal with the specific issue the hon. Gentleman raises about codifying existing legislation on shotguns and trying to achieve a more rational approach.

Stephen Lloyd: The issue of feed-in tariffs is ongoing at the Court of Appeal, and we are still not sure when it is going to lay down a judgment. Will the Leader of the House therefore ask the relevant Minister to table regulations so that the 40-day period can start and solar companies can have some clarity for the future?

George Young: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have appealed against the initial decision, and we await the outcome. Without the action that we took, the money that is available would simply have been soaked up within a few months, and the entire £800 million budget would have been exhausted. I will pass on to the relevant Minister the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion about early action now, in advance of the appeal decision, but I am not sure whether that is a practical option.

Madeleine Moon: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and penblwydd hapus i chi.
	May we have a debate on the nonsense issue of copyright law and university examination papers? Universities are unable to share past examination papers either in digital form or in photocopied classroom handouts because of third-party information in the questions. That is a nonsense, as universities are liable to prosecution if they do so, and it prevents students from preparing for exams. I am aware that the Conservative party had a manifesto pledge to deal with the issue.

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. It is a long time since I had anything to do with university examination papers, but I will of course raise with my right hon. Friends at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills the important copyright issue she raises to see whether there is a way through the dilemma she outlines, whereby it is apparently illegal to share past papers, which might be in the interests of students.

Christopher Pincher: In Tamworth the governors of Greenacres primary school hope to integrate with the local Landau Forte academy so that both schools can work better together to identify the most disadvantaged youngsters and help them before
	they reach secondary school. Such vertical integration between schools is highly innovative, so I hope that the Leader of the House will grant time for a debate about it and other similar innovations in education.

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an important point about the advantage of vertical integration between primary and secondary schools. It would be an important issue for a debate, perhaps in Westminster Hall, and I understand that so far 29 “all through” sponsored academies have opened, with the latest doing so this month. There is a need to promote the seamless transition from one school to another, and the process that he outlines assists that and is greatly to be welcomed.

Tom Harris: In these straitened economic times, I have had to intervene on several occasions on behalf of local businesses, which for non-payment or late payment of taxes have been threatened by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs with a range of sanctions up to and including closure. May we expect an early debate, attended I hope by both Business and Treasury Ministers, so that the House can remind them that sometimes a more softly, softly and common-sense approach is more effective and, certainly, more appropriate than one of bullying?

George Young: I am sorry to hear that some of the businesses in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency face such action. From my own experience, I know that quite often an intervention from a local Member of Parliament can secure a modified approach, and it is the Government’s view—we have set it out at some length—that, given the problems facing many businesses, HMRC should exercise restraint where appropriate. I shall pass on his concerns to my hon. Friends at the Treasury, and he might like to raise the issue at Treasury questions on Tuesday.

Mark Pritchard: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and may I, too, take this opportunity to wish you a happy birthday?
	May we have a wide-ranging debate on Britain’s contribution to the IMF? Would the Leader of the House like to put it on the record that, if any new contribution is sought from the United Kingdom, there will be a vote in this House before it is provided?

George Young: My hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to that important matter, and the position is as I set out a few moments ago: the Government have authority to increase their subscriptions to the IMF up to a certain level, and if any new bid from the IMF requires a contribution that takes us over that level it will of course be a matter for Parliament to debate and approve.

David Hanson: I confess that I rather like the right hon. Gentleman and his approach to business questions, but he really must answer the point that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) made earlier. The feed-in tariff consultation was ruled illegal; the Government have appealed against the judgment, at a cost of £58,000; and as yet there is no outcome. But in my constituency, businesses that
	manufacture and install solar panels are suffering confusion because of that shambles, so may we have an early statement on the matter?

George Young: There will be an opportunity next Thursday to cross-question Ministers, but the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal would go against the action that the Government have taken to appeal against the decision. He is in effect inviting us to admit, by taking the action that we do not want to take, that we have lost the appeal—[ Interruption. ] And I see from his body language that I have correctly identified the problem for the Government. We must simply await the outcome of the appeal.

Peter Bone: This week the Foreign Secretary revealed that there is a secret bunker from which the Government will be run in the event of some catastrophic and destabilising incident. Unfortunately, we do not know who would be in the bunker or who would be in charge. I should hope that the Leader of the House would make it, and for that matter his brother, the Deputy Leader of the House, but may we have next week a written statement listing all the people who would be in the bunker?

George Young: No. But I was sorry to read in Hansard that among those specifically excluded from the bunker was Mrs Bone.

Jonathan Reynolds: Will the Leader of the House say a little more on whether the Government will support the Metal Theft (Prevention) Bill, which is on the Order Paper for tomorrow in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones)? I also heard the comments of the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), and a great many Members want something done about the issue. Would not supporting the Bill allow action to be taken before the Queen’s Speech and the Olympics? We really do need something doing rather quickly.

George Young: The Government are concerned about metal theft and the damage it is doing to churches, monuments and other buildings throughout the country, and there is a working party within government looking at a range of options, such as banning cash payments and better licensing. The Government will outline their views on the Bill when we reach it tomorrow, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take the issue seriously, we are looking at a package of measures and we want to make progress.

Guto Bebb: May we have a debate on the way in which income tax policy affects families? The CARE report on the taxation of families highlighted the fact that single-earner families in the United Kingdom pay a disproportionate amount of their income in tax. In view of the hint by the Prime Minister that the decision on child benefit will be revisited, is now not the time to have a debate on a tax system that is equitable for all families in this country?

George Young: I recognise the concern that my hon. Friend expresses. The Government have made it clear that as we reduce the deficit it is appropriate for
	those on higher incomes to make a contribution. Against that background, we announced that households with one or more higher rate taxpayer would forgo child benefit from next year. That remains our policy. We are looking at how it will be implemented and hope to make further announcements in due course.

Kevin Brennan: May we have a statement later today from the Prime Minister on responsible capitalism? Peacocks, which is based in Cardiff, has gone into administration, as we heard earlier. RBS pulled the plug on the finance for the company, yet we hear that its chief executive, Stephen Hester, is to get a £1.5 million bonus. When will the Prime Minister actually do something about this, rather than giving the impression that he is busy doing nothing and working the whole day through to find lots of things not to do?

George Young: It is not the case that the Government have done nothing about bankers’ bonuses. A moment ago, I outlined the action that was taken through Merlin to cap cash payments at £2,000 and to get bonuses on a downward trajectory. The hon. Gentleman will know that we finished consulting on executive pay in November. We hope to make an announcement very soon. His Government totally failed to take such action over 13 years.

Jason McCartney: Huddersfield Town fans, and I declare an interest as a season ticket holder, are campaigning for the return of the club’s original 40% in its home ground, the Galpharm stadium. I hope that an amicable agreement can be reached between the chairman of Huddersfield Town football club and the chairman of the Huddersfield Giants rugby league club. May we have a debate on football governance that focuses not only on club ownership but on the ownership of football grounds and stadiums?

George Young: I, too, hope that there is an amicable resolution. An unamicable resolution between those two formidable people would be a sight to behold. There has been a Select Committee report on football governance. I hope that in due course the Liaison Committee will propose it for debate. That might be an opportunity for my hon. Friend to raise his concerns. In the meantime, I will see whether there is anything that Ministers at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport can do to resolve the local tussle to which he refers.

Derek Twigg: The Secretary of State for Health has now united doctors, nurses and midwives against the disastrous Health and Social Care Bill. In view of his comments this morning, will he be coming to the House to provide evidence for his claim that that is more about pensions than concerns over the Health and Social Care Bill? My constituents who work in the health service are concerned about the disastrous effect that the Bill will have on health and social care in this country, not about pensions.

George Young: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has consistently made clear his views about the valuable work that is done by nurses, doctors, midwives and others in the NHS. We are
	disappointed at the response to our proposals on pensions, which are based on the Hutton report. My right hon. Friend addressed the House on health at some length on Monday. Of course, he will also be available for Health questions. I reject the assertion, which we have heard on several occasions, that he does not value the work done by workers in the NHS—of course he does.

Simon Hughes: There is considerable concern not just in Greater London but beyond about Thames Water’s proposal to create a Thames tunnel for a super-sewer in the near future. Will the Leader of the House look into how soon we can debate the Government’s policy statement on waste water, which is awaited? Will he confirm that this House will have a debate and a vote on that policy statement and on the power to transfer the decision on planning to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?

George Young: My right hon. Friend raises an issue that is important not only to Londoners but to others who would benefit from the proposal. It would be an important infrastructure investment and I agree that it should be subjected to appropriate debate in the House. If he will leave it with me, I will see what would be the most appropriate forum for that debate. If certain issues were raised, there would have to be a debate under the Localism Act 2011. He should leave it to me to find an appropriate avenue for that debate.

Ian Austin: Many of my constituents are keen to see justice, self-determination, peace and prosperity for people in Kashmir. May we have a debate on that issue, because it would enable the relevant Minister to update the House on the Government’s work to encourage talks between Pakistan and India and to encourage economic development and better education and health care systems? Does the Leader of the House agree that it would be a good idea for a Foreign Office Minister to come to constituencies such as mine, where there are constituents who have a great deal of knowledge and expertise on how Britain could help in this area?

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for extending a generous invitation to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which I will of course pass on. There was an opportunity on Tuesday, when we had Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions, for the hon. Gentleman to raise this matter. I will pass on his concerns to the Foreign Secretary and ask my right hon. Friend to write to him.

Alun Cairns: Teachers’ ability to instil discipline in schools plays an important part in driving up educational standards. May we have a debate on this issue to ensure that teachers have the necessary powers and clarity on policy to reintroduce discipline?

George Young: My hon. Friend is right: teachers need to be able to enforce discipline in their classes. We have issued new, simpler guidance for teachers on discipline, cutting the length from 600 pages to 50. The new guidance states that no-touch policies are unnecessary, that teachers can use reasonable force to control or
	physically restrain disruptive pupils, and that heads can search for items such as alcohol, illegal drugs and stolen property. I hope that that is a move in a direction that my hon. Friend can support.

Jonathan Ashworth: Further to the exchanges that the Leader of the House had with the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), may I join the calls for a debate on Somalia? There is a humanitarian crisis in that country, its political instability is well known and the conference that the Prime Minister is convening in February is potentially an important moment. It would be beneficial to have a debate ahead of that conference. I join the calls of other hon. Members for the Leader of the House to consider that request and I hope that he looks upon it kindly.

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he couched that bid for a debate. I agree that it is an important issue. As I said in answer to an earlier question, I would like to reflect on the case that hon. Members have made for a debate on Somalia.

Henry Smith: Last year, under the European health insurance card scheme, the UK paid £1.7 billion to other European economic area nations for the treatment of Britons abroad but recovered only £125 million from EEA countries from the treatment of their citizens in this country. May we have a debate on the efficiency of NHS trusts in auditing, and therefore in recovering, such costs?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern about that imbalance in trade. My understanding is that it is due to the fact that more UK pensioners retire to other EU countries than residents of EU countries retire here. Under EU rules, we have to pay for the health treatment of those who retire to EU countries. The imbalance that he refers to is not a result of health tourism or the abuse of the NHS, although we are of course against those things, but due to the fact that more of our citizens retire to the EU than EU citizens retire here.

James Morris: Next month, I will attend the official launch of the Ormiston academy in Cradley Heath in Sandwell, which is the latest school to become an academy in my constituency. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on giving schools that are currently in LEA control similar powers to academies, so that we can drive up teaching standards and attainment in areas where LEAs are underperforming, such as Sandwell?

George Young: My hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that we now have more than 1,300 new academies. The number of academies has risen sevenfold since we came to power. All the evidence is that schools that convert to academies do better than those that do not. On the issue of extending to local authority schools the powers that academies have, which was the thrust of his question, my initial response is to ask why such schools do not go for academy status and get the benefits in that way. I will, of course, pass on to my ministerial colleagues the suggestion that he has made.

Diana Johnson: The Health Secretary claimed that the Health and Social Care Bill would put clinicians back at the centre of the NHS. In the light of the decision by clinicians to withdraw their support for the Bill this morning, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Health Secretary to make a statement to set out a permanent pause to this ill-fated measure?

George Young: No. There was, as the hon. Lady knows, a pause last July when we had the NHS Future Forum, in which nurses and doctors were involved. I am sure that when the Bill goes through, doctors and nurses will welcome their increased responsibility for clinical commissioning, and it must be right for that to be transferred from primary care trusts to professionals and the NHS, who are more aware of the needs of those who need treatment.

Bob Blackman: Happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker, and may you preside over many future such occasions in the Chair of the House.
	Harrow council is currently considering two major developments. The first is a commercial development on Whitchurch playing fields and the second involves the demolition of a library, building on a car park and the demolition of a community centre, all to provide a superstore. The one common factor is that Harrow council owns the land and has failed to consult the public on the proposals. May we have a debate on transparency and consultation in local government?

George Young: If the local authority has failed to carry out a statutory responsibility, namely to consult those affected by a development, my hon. Friend should raise the matter in the appropriate way. He can also refer it to the local government ombudsman if he believes that the local authority has in any way been guilty of maladministration. He will know that the Localism Bill will introduce a new requirement on developers to consult local communities, so I hope that in future local people will have more of a chance to comment on developments than they have at the moment.

Gareth Johnson: Next month will see the 500th day in which the Leader of the Opposition has been in his post. Could Government time be given up to commemorate the occasion?

George Young: House time is regularly given up to the Opposition, and there will be an Opposition day on Monday. The Opposition might like to take the opportunity to clarify some of the confusion that has arisen recently about what exactly their policy is on the measures that we have taken. First the shadow Chancellor says that the Labour party accepts them, then the deputy Labour leader says that it has not accepted the austerity cuts. I hope that when we have a debate on these issues on Monday, the Opposition’s position will become clearer.

Lee Scott: Will the Leader of the House allow a debate following the recent disappointing report by the Government of Sri Lanka into the atrocities that took place there? May we have a debate on how to get justice for the innocent civilians who were killed?

George Young: I commend my hon. Friend’s work as chairman of the all-party group on Tamils. I will raise with the Foreign Secretary the report to which he refers and see what action Her Majesty’s Government can take in response to it.

Andrew Jones: May we have a debate about skills in the workplace? In my constituency, businesses have raised with me some of the challenges that they face in filling the vacancies that they have simply because of the lack of skills among applicants. They have also told me of their support for the various Government initiatives to address the problem, particularly higher-level apprenticeships.

George Young: We all have a role to play in drawing to the attention of local employers what is available under the apprenticeship scheme and the youth contract. Under the youth contract, help of more than £2,000 a year is available to employers who take on young people. I hope that we all play a role in highlighting the Government’s provisions to reduce youth unemployment in our constituencies.

Rehman Chishti: The Leader of the House will be aware of a recent report stating that there were 2,823 incidents of honour-based violence in our country last year. May we have an urgent debate to consider what more can be done to address such horrendous acts of violence?

George Young: Honour-based violence and killings are appalling crimes, and I agree with my hon. Friend that we should do all we can to tackle them. He will know that we published last year our action plan to end violence against women and girls, which outlined a range of initiatives, including some funds, to drive down that horrendous crime.

Jeremy Lefroy: Staffordshire county council will shortly integrate adult social care and health services with the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Partnership NHS Trust. I believe that that will bring great benefits to people across the city, the county and my constituency, and I pay tribute to all those involved for their hard work. May we have a debate on the integration of adult social care?

George Young: My hon. Friend raises perhaps the most important issue confronting the NHS, which has confronted it for many years, namely the iron curtain that has historically existed between the NHS and social care. I welcome the work to which he refers, which is breaking down the barriers, and I am in favour of joint commissioning and joint budgeting. I hope that the White Paper that we have promised in the spring will take that agenda forward, and I commend the work that is going on in his constituency.

Glyn Davies: As we all live longer and enjoy more and more birthdays, Mr Speaker, not only social care for the elderly but palliative care is becoming the greatest challenge for the Government and Parliament. Will the Leader of the House ensure that there are early opportunities to debate those issues in the Chamber?

George Young: One of the first actions that we took on coming to power was to ask Andrew Dilnot to undertake a review of the issues to which my hon. Friend refers. He reported last July, and we then consulted for a period of up to three months. We are working on a White Paper, and my hon. Friend will have seen that talks between the parties on the issue have now started. I welcome that development, and I very much hope that we can get a consensual approach to the long-term funding of social care.

Jack Lopresti: Last year the Government estimated that cybercrime cost the UK economy £27 billion. May we have a debate on the issues surrounding cyber-threats to UK citizens and businesses?

George Young: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. Some 6% of gross domestic product is now accounted for by trade on the internet, and that figure is likely to rise. Of course, we want a secure digital environment so that that trade can flourish. He will know that on 25 November we launched the cyber-security strategy outlining a number of measures to protect economic prosperity, and we are investing £650 million in making our cyber-security capability even better. I would welcome such a debate, and he might like to approach the Backbench Business Committee.

Andrew Stephenson: There has been a 70% increase in apprenticeship starts in Pendle over the past year, which is a bigger proportional increase than in the north-west or England as a whole. May we have a debate, particularly ahead of national apprenticeship week in February, to mark what the Government have done and what more can be done?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who may like to intervene in the debate on Monday about youth unemployment. He asks what more we are doing. We have commissioned Professor Alison Wolf to review vocational education, and we are trying to remove perverse incentives that may push pupils into easy options. We are working with employers and universities to identify the best vocational opportunities.

Robert Buckland: In the light of today’s welcome report by the Procedure Committee, will my right hon. Friend make a statement about ways in which debates on e-petitions can be better accommodated by the House?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and to the Procedure Committee for the report on e-petitions that it has just published. He will know that some 3 million people have engaged with the e-petitions system that we launched, and it has inspired a number of good debates in the House and helped to shape Government policy on some key issues. The Committee states:
	“The system introduced by the Government has proved very popular and has already provided the subjects for a number of lively and illuminating debates.”
	I propose to consider the detailed recommendations in the Committee’s report and respond in the usual way in due course.

David Nuttall: May I urge the Leader of the House to ensure that ahead of all future European Council meetings, we have a debate on the Floor of the House so that we have the opportunity to set the agenda? In respect of the forthcoming European Council meeting, he set out in his reply to the business question that there is, in effect, a blank day that is set down for a general debate. May I urge that that day be used to discuss the agenda for the next European Council?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for emphasising and underlining a point that was made earlier in these exchanges. I think I am right in saying that the day that I identified for a general debate on a subject to be announced is after the European Council rather than before it, but of course I have taken on board the suggestions made by him and other hon. Friends. Along with the Backbench Business Committee, I will consider the matter before the next European Council meeting later this year.

Martin Vickers: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can only assume that you have saved the best till last.
	In reply to my question last week after the statement on high-speed rail, the Transport Secretary replied favourably to my request that everything possible be done to ensure that British-based companies receive the orders, such as my constituents who work at Tata Steel in Scunthorpe. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early statement on how the Government intend to achieve that?

George Young: My hon. Friend will know from the national infrastructure plan that HS2 will form part of a long-term pipeline of infrastructure projects enabling private sector firms to plan for the future. We are very keen that the UK’s supply chain industries should be able to benefit from those investments, and we want to ensure that our tendering procedure does all it legitimately can to enable locally based suppliers to bid. We are opening a dialogue with UK-based suppliers to ensure that they can bid competitively for future contracts, and we are using pre-procurement dialogue to encourage efficiency and innovation and to establish more sustainable supply chains.

Mr Speaker: I thank all 60 Back-Bench Members who asked questions on the business statement.

Personal Statement

Jack Dromey: I would like to make an apology to the House.
	A report has been published by the Standards and Privileges Committee following an investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I failed to update in time my initial registration in respect of payments received from my previous employer during the months of June to October 2010. This I have now done. I also failed to declare an interest in speaking in two debates on 16 June and 16 September 2010.
	Notwithstanding that the commissioner found, and the Committee noted, that the breaches were unintentional, I want to apologise unreservedly to the House, and I will in future fully abide by the rules of the House.

Mr Speaker: I thank and am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I remind the House that points of order do not arise on personal statements, but unrelated ones can now be raised.

Points of Order

Fiona Mactaggart: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether it is in order for Ministers to abuse Opposition Back Benchers on the basis of their age or gender—[ Laughter. ] Yesterday, we heard the Prime Minister do that to the 79-year-old hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner). That problem was repeated today—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I say to Mr Shelbrooke, who is now engaging busily in a conversation with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones): calm yourself. The hon. Lady is raising a point of order about manners, to which I intend to listen and with which I will deal, and it hardly helps if people are sniggering and smirking at the point she is making.

Fiona Mactaggart: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	The Minister of State, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, did the same thing today when he described the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) as “hysterical”. You used the word “manners”, Mr Speaker. Is there anything you can do to promote better manners in this Chamber, so that Members do not face abuse from Ministers?

Mr Speaker: What I would say to the hon. Lady is that “Erskine May” is clear that good temper and moderation in the use of language are the hallmarks of parliamentary debate—to those I would simply add good taste. I hope that that is helpful.

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At last week’s business questions, I asked about a little boy who was being denied cancer
	treatment. Thanks to the intervention of the Leader of the House and the immediate intervention of the Secretary of State for Health, that treatment was granted. Sometimes the public get the impression that Parliament does not work, but on that occasion it clearly did. I wondered how I could get that on the record.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has done so and he knows it.

BILL PRESENTED
	 — 
	Civil Aviation

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mrs Theresa Villiers, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Secretary Hague, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mrs Secretary May, Secretary Vince Cable, Secretary Justine Greening, Mr Secretary Paterson, Secretary Michael Moore, Mrs Secretary Gillan and Mr Francis Maude, presented a Bill to make provision about the regulation of operators of dominant airports; to confer functions on the Civil Aviation Authority under competition legislation in relation to services provided at airports; to make provision about aviation security; to make provision about the regulation of provision of flight accommodation; to make further provision about the Civil Aviation Authority’s membership, administration and functions in relation to enforcement, regulatory burdens and the provision of information relating to aviation; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 275) with explanatory notes (Bill 275-EN).

Connecting Europe Facility

Mark Hoban: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 16176/11 and Addenda 1 and 2, No. 16499/11, No. 16006/11 and Addenda 1 and 2, No. 15629/11 and Addenda 1 to 35, No. 15813/11 and Addenda 1 and 2, relating to the European Commission’s draft regulations on the Connecting Europe Facility in the next Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-20; supports the Government’s view that at a time of ongoing economic fragility in Europe and tight constraints on domestic public spending, the Commission’s proposal for substantial increases in EU spending in this area compared with current spend is unacceptable and incompatible with the tough decisions being taken to bring deficits under control in both the UK and countries across Europe; considers that spending in this area should focus on identifying and providing genuine EU-added value, and not on spending where domestic governments and the market are better placed to act; and further supports the Government’s ongoing efforts to reduce both the Commission’s proposed budget for the Connecting Europe Facility and the overall level of spending in the next Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-20.
	The European Commission’s proposal for a connecting Europe facility for transport, energy and telecommunications infrastructure cuts across the work of Government. I am therefore grateful that I have been joined in the Chamber by ministerial colleagues from the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Department for Transport and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, in putting forward the Government’s case on the motion.
	Matters of deficits, spending and growth are at the top of all of our concerns, not just here in the UK, but across Europe. Those issues go to the very heart of the continued instability in the euro area. That ongoing instability vindicates the Government’s decision to get ahead of the curve, cut our deficit and impose strict financial discipline on our budget.

William Cash: Whereas many hon. Members will agree with the sentiment of the Government’s motion, the idea that we should contribute to the EU indirectly through the International Monetary Fund on the scale that is proposed is unacceptable.

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend’s point is outside the topic of the debate this afternoon. He is aware of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s comments and assurances on that matter.
	As I have said, at home, we have taken tough decisions to tackle our deficit and demonstrated leadership. We expect exactly the same leadership on spending in Europe from the European Commission, but whether on the annual budget or the financial framework, such leadership has been completely lacking. Instead of finding ways to cut spending or to drive better value for money, the Commission, through the connecting Europe facility, proposes to increase spending on transport, energy infrastructure and telecommunications by 400% as part of a multi-annual financial framework that increases payments by more than €100 billion over its duration.
	Just as at home, where we have prioritised spending on growth while tackling the deficit, the Government would like a higher proportion of a restrained EU budget spent to promote sustainable growth. The proposal
	does not achieve that objective. We are arguing that spending should be lower, and that what spending remains should be focused on areas that offer genuine added value across the EU.

John Redwood: A number of people who have written to me condemning the High Speed 2 project have alleged that Britain has to build it under the EU network ruling. Will the Minister confirm that Britain remains free to make its own decision on whether to have High Speed 2?

Mark Hoban: My right hon. Friend is, as is often the case, spot on. There is no requirement under the proposal for us to build High Speed 2.

Kelvin Hopkins: Following the intervention from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), is not the nation state rather than the EU the best place to judge how much should be spent, what it should be spent on and how efficiently it should be spent?

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. There is a debate to be had on where such decisions should be taken and what our priorities should be. That is why it is important for us to impose discipline on the EU budget and try to influence debate on it to ensure that when money is spent, it is spent well and wisely in pursuit of our objectives.
	Let me remind the House of three key aspects of the Commission’s proposal for the next financial framework: first, an increase in the budget of more than €14 billion a year compared with a freeze on current levels; secondly, a new financial transactions tax to fund the EU budget; and thirdly, an end to the UK’s permanent rebate. That financial framework proposal and the proposals to increase spending through the connecting Europe facility are unacceptable.
	In November, the House agreed that the Commission’s financial framework was
	“unacceptable, unrealistic, too large and incompatible with the tough decisions being taken in the UK and in countries across Europe to bring deficits under control and stimulate economic growth”.

Graham Stringer: I am following the Minister’s logic carefully and agree with him, but would it not be more sensible to set an objective of reducing the European budget by around a third, which is the cut that has been imposed on local government?

Mark Hoban: I will set out the Government’s position on the financial framework in my own sweet time.
	Continuing financial instability in the eurozone owing to unsustainable levels of public debt makes the case for restraint stronger: the EU budget must be part of fiscal consolidation, not immune from it. As the Prime Minister has stated, alongside leaders from France, Germany, the Netherlands and Finland, the maximum acceptable increase in EU budget size until 2020 is a freeze in current payment terms.
	Since November’s debate on the financial framework, we have made significant steps towards achieving that goal. In the face of a Commission proposal to increase
	the 2012 budget by 4.9%, the UK led the European Council in demanding, and achieving, a restriction of the 2012 budget to a real freeze to 2011 payments. In pursuit of a real freeze in payments, the UK’s position must, and will, be consistent and clear in annual budget negotiations, financial framework negotiations and negotiations on the individual spending programmes that make up the framework, of which the connecting Europe facility is one.

Mark Reckless: When the Minister refers to seeking to achieve a real-terms freeze, what deflator or measure of inflation is he using?

Mark Hoban: The measure that is used in these discussions is the forecast of inflation provided by the EU, which is currently 2%.
	The nature and size of these spending programmes are negotiated in parallel with the negotiations on the overall financial framework. That means that the eventual size and shape of the financial framework are influenced by negotiations on those individual programmes. Given our call for a real freeze, any increase in the size of individual programmes means a corresponding decrease in other programmes.

James Clappison: My hon. Friend is making a compelling case. Will he confirm, as appears from the documents before us to be the Government’s view, that in just one of the documents—that on the trans-European networks—the European Commission is proposing a €40 billion increase above the level of the freeze he described?

Mark Hoban: In that €40 billion, there are three components. At the moment, about €6 billion is spent. The proposal before us represents an increase of €24 billion, which takes us to €30 billion. In addition, there is a transfer of €10 billion from structural funds, which gets us to the €40 billion figure. The actual increase is €24 billion, or about 400%. I think the whole House would agree that an increase of that scale is not acceptable. The €24 billion increase set out in the documents has to be seen in the context that the Commission’s financial framework proposal is €100 billion more than a real freeze. The Government cannot accept the Commission’s proposal for an increase in the facility, and we will argue for significant reductions to it.

Anne Main: In discussions with the Commission about the proposed increases in spending, what justification does the Commission give regarding the ability to afford this extra spending, given the crisis afflicting the eurozone?

Mark Hoban: Of course, in a way, the Commission’s view is that it is probably somebody else’s problem to resolve the financing. It put forward measures in the multi-annual financial framework that will increase the amount of money flowing to Europe. It has put forward an EU-wide financial transactions tax, which we object to. Its view is that if such a tax went ahead, the revenues would go not to member states, to spend at their discretion, but to the European Commission to spend. As part of
	its financial framework, the Commission also proposed the end to our rebate—another proposal we would reject.
	The Commission would look to member states to meet the cost of these projects, which is why it is absolutely vital that we work with like-minded allies to restrain the EU budget and ensure that we can spend more money at home, while less money goes abroad. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) chunters, but if he had listened to my speech, he would have heard me say that we have signed a letter with the Chancellor in Germany, Angela Merkel, and with the French President calling for a real-terms freeze in payments. That is the sort of alliance we can build in Europe. I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s amendment later, but I am rather bemused: the Labour Government talked tough in EU negotiations, but they happily gave away our rebate, costing this Government €10 billion over the life of this Parliament.

Peter Bone: The Minister is being far too generous to Labour Members. Over the last five years of the Labour Government, our net contribution to the EU was an extortionate £19 billion. Under this Government, it will be £41 billion, because Labour gave away a large part of Mrs Thatcher’s rebate. That is a disgrace, and Labour should be held to account for it.

Mark Hoban: I like to be generous in politics, but the previous Government were generous in giving away our money, by giving away part of the rebate. I will come back to that in a moment.

Dan Byles: My understanding—I was not in the House at the time, so perhaps my hon. Friend can help me—is that the rebate was given up in exchange for reform of the common agricultural policy. Will my hon. Friend update us on how well that is going?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there were bold and tough words from the previous Government about being prepared to give up part of our rebate for real reform of the CAP. Well, we gave up our money, but we did not get real reform. That was typical of the Labour party’s reactions when it was in government: lots of tough talk, but no action to back it up.

Kelvin Hopkins: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Hoban: I will give way just once more, but then I want to try to make some progress.

Kelvin Hopkins: Like Government Members, I was opposed to giving up that great tranche of our rebate. The Government have made much of the issue. Is it not time they started trying to renegotiate the rebate to get it back again?

Mark Hoban: We have made it absolutely clear that the rebate is there to stay, and that is one of the key parts of our negotiating strategy.
	I want to say a few words about infrastructure spending. The Government have made it clear that focused infrastructure improvements are a domestic priority.
	When undertaken wisely, it is clear they can boost growth, protect the environment and improve lives. In his autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced investment of £100 million in the creation of up to 10 super-connected cities across the UK with 80 to 100 megabits per second broadband and city-wide, high-speed mobile connectivity. Last week, the Secretary of State for Transport announced details of the new high-speed rail network.
	However, the key is having carefully focused investment. When prioritising spending for infrastructure, the Government have taken the wider economic context into account. The urgent need to reduce our domestic deficit has meant that we have had to choose our investments carefully and focus infrastructure spending on where it can have the most positive effect.
	That is the approach the Commission needs to take to European infrastructure spending, focusing affordable levels of spending where they will make most difference. Therefore, while the Government will, first and foremost, argue for a reduction in the overall size of the connecting Europe facility budget, we will endeavour to ensure that the final settlement agreed is focused on spending money where it will add most value. That means spending money only where neither the market nor domestic Governments are better placed to act—the point the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) made in his first intervention.
	We will be pushing the Commission for additional information to allow us to judge where the money will best aid growth and support our environmental objectives. That is consistent with the Government’s desire to see spending that promotes sustainable growth take a bigger share of a tighter budget in the next financial framework. The ambition of the connecting Europe facility, while laudable, must respect the fiscal realities of Europe.
	The Opposition have tabled an amendment to today’s motion. It is rather incredible, in a week when Labour’s policy on deficit reduction has become ever more confused, that the hon. Member for Nottingham East has tabled an amendment calling for an effective deficit reduction strategy. Ever since the shadow Chancellor said on Saturday that
	“we are going to have keep all these cuts”,
	the Labour party has been totally confused, with its deputy leader later saying:
	“We’re not accepting the Government’s austerity cuts, we are totally opposing them”.
	So Labour Members accept the cuts, but then oppose them.
	Labour Members cannot say they are credible on the budget, because of the legacy they have left. Despite our entering the downturn with the largest structural deficit in the G7, the Labour leader told Andrew Marr this weekend that he did not think Labour spent too much. Let us remind him that it is because of Labour’s record on spending that our triple A rating was on negative outlook when the Labour party left office. That downgrade threat has been lifted because this Government have a credible and effective deficit reduction strategy. One would think that the Labour party would have learned from that, but, no—its five-point plan would add £20 billion to the deficit this year. Rather than seeing an effective debt reduction strategy from Labour, all we have is more of the same: more spending,
	more borrowing and more debt. So before Labour lectures anybody else on the deficit reduction strategy, it had better get its own house in order.
	If that was not bad enough, the hon. Member for Nottingham East has scored another own goal in his amendment by calling for reform of the common agricultural policy—we touched on that earlier. We have heard brave words before from Labour politicians about CAP reform. Tony Blair said that
	“the rebate remains because the reason for the rebate remains. Of course, if we get rid of the common agricultural policy and we change the reason why the rebate is there, the case for the rebate changes.”—[Official Report, 29 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 1293.]
	Those were tough words, but as we know, he gave way to the French, sacrificing €2 billion in our rebate a year, which will cost the country €10 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament. In the current financial framework, CAP spending has not fallen, as Labour said that it would, but increased by €3 billion. So it is all very well the hon. Gentleman talking tough in his amendment, but we have heard it before from Labour—all bark and no bite.
	Achieving the priorities that the House has supported in the next financial framework will not be an easy task. The Government need to defend the rebate, resist EU taxes and restrain the budget size. The UK can deliver results in Europe, as outcomes in the 2011 and 2012 annual budget negotiations have shown, but to achieve our overall aims we must be constant and vigilant in our resistance to increases in the budget. A 400% increase to infrastructure spending in the EU budget, without any corresponding reductions elsewhere, is unacceptable in the current economic environment. We will work with our allies to cut this programme down to size, delivering fiscal restraint and value for money. Although we are clear that we need infrastructure investment to boost productivity and growth, projects need to be effective and affordable, but the plans in the connecting Europe facility proposed by the Commission are neither. I therefore urge my hon. Friends to support the motion.

Dawn Primarolo: I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected amendment (a), in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). I call him to move the amendment.

Christopher Leslie: I beg to move amendment (a), in line 5, leave out from ‘2014-20’ to end and add
	‘believes that there should be no overall increase in expenditure compared with current levels; takes note of the concerns about the Eurozone economy expressed by Standard and Poor’s that “a reform process based on a pillar of fiscal austerity alone risks becoming self-defeating, as domestic demand falls in line with consumers’ rising concerns about job security and disposable incomes, eroding national tax revenues”; calls on the European Commission to reduce its proposed budget and the proportion of the Multiannual Financial Framework set aside for the Common Agricultural Policy and to reorder the Connecting Europe Facility proposals to phase capital infrastructure components so that they enhance employment and economic growth within a more limited multi-year budget; supports action to promote EU competitiveness and review the impact of the structural funds; and calls on the Government to develop more effective deficit reduction strategies at home and across the EU by advocating urgently a credible plan for growth.’.
	I am glad that the amendment has been selected, because the Government’s motion is missing a rather important component—something conspicuous by its absence. To give hon. Members a clue, it is a word missing not only from the motion but from our economy.
	What problem do the Conservative party, and those very full Liberal Democrat Benches, have with the concept of economic growth? The lack of growth is the reason that the Government say they have to borrow £158 billion more than planned last year. It helps to explain why in the three months to November unemployment was at its highest level since 1994; and, of course, it explains why business confidence has collapsed. The Government are either ignorant of the negative impact that an austerity obsession here and in Europe is having on the prospects for growth, or they are wilfully pulling the rug from underneath the economy in the twisted expectation that that will somehow restore confidence and deal with the sovereign debts created in the wake of the global financial crisis.
	The European Commission’s plans before the House are revealing of the current approach to economic policy across Europe and of the Government’s lack of influence and lack of interest in showing a positive lead. We are all agreed on the need to reduce the planned budget for the multi-annual financial framework for the years until 2020, and we too believe that there should be no overall increase in expenditure when compared with current levels, but why are Ministers totally failing to make the case for a proper growth strategy in Europe with our main trading partners, with whom we need to do well if our exporters are to succeed?

William Cash: I am extremely interested in the shadow Minister’s approach to the question of growth. When Labour was in government, over several years I raised the question about lack of growth and the vast increase in indebtedness, but there was no response or attempt to deal with over-regulation—over-regulation being one of the main reasons we are not getting growth. Does he accept therefore that it is difficult to stomach any lectures from him on growth? I have criticisms of the failure on growth in Europe and in this country, but we certainly do not want any lectures from him and his team.

Christopher Leslie: I hope that I am not striking a lecturing tone. I am simply imploring the Government to pull their finger out and do something about economic growth in the UK and Europe. I am making the point that what happens in Europe affects our economy. The regulatory debate did indeed go on for many years. The Minister himself called for deregulation and light-touch approaches across the City and elsewhere. We have to get regulation issues correct, and we all have lessons to learn from what went wrong in that regulatory debate. We have admitted that mistakes were made, but I am still waiting for the Minister to accept that he too made poor decisions in calling for deregulation, particularly in financial services.
	Nothing in the Government’s motion seeks to steer the Commission towards a more activist role in boosting and stimulating European economies, particularly in the short term. There is no sense that the Government are seeking to influence this connecting Europe facility
	in order to re-phase capital investment and bring real help now to an economy on the brink. One-dimensional collective austerity, as advocated by our Government—and also, unfortunately, by the Germans and others—makes it harder to get deficits down, not easier to reduce public debt.
	Hon. Members do not have to take my word for it. Six days ago, the credit ratings agency Standard & Poor’s, after downgrading the status of some eurozone nations, stated that
	“a reform process based on a pillar of fiscal austerity alone risks becoming self-defeating, as domestic demand falls in line with consumers’ rising concerns about job security and disposable incomes, eroding national tax revenues”.
	Even the credit rating agencies are now worried about the lack of growth in the European economy and about whether the eurozone has the right strategy for building its way out of the fiscal hole in which it finds itself.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Given that we are net contributors to the EU budget, which puts a great burden on our taxpayers, will the hon. Gentleman explain how building a railway in Romania would help the UK economy?

Christopher Leslie: It is important that the European Commission, and the eurozone in particular, focuses on getting economic growth. My simple point is that it is not happening. An austerity-only approach is being taken, but it is not working, just as it is not working in this country. Of course we have to ensure that we reduce the proposed budget increases—we do not disagree with that—but there are ways to stimulate an economy within that envelope, including through a phased approach towards the European spending review process. That is my point. It is the glaring omission from the Government’s plans so far.

John Redwood: Will the shadow Minister bring us up to date with Labour thinking on the IMF having more money to lend to save the euro? Does Labour think that it would be a good idea because it would promote growth, or a bad idea because it would damage the British budget?

Christopher Leslie: We are all waiting to see what proposals come forward. The Chancellor has said that he will come to Parliament and let us have a say on many of these things. Indeed, perhaps the Minister can help us out with the timing of those proposals—[Interruption.] If he would care to listen to my questions, perhaps he could also tell us when we will get the Bill to enact the European financial stabilisation mechanism permanent bail-out fund. We are all waiting for that. The eurozone countries are supposed to be rolling together the European financial stability facility and the EFSM into that permanent arrangement, but as I understand it we will have to legislate for that. Will he tell us when that will happen, because it is related to this question about potential IMF funding? We need clarity from the Government—and from the IMF as well.

Graham Stringer: I completely follow my hon. Friend’s logic, but surely this is not the largest issue facing the future of the European economy. The largest issue is that the people running Europe are determined to keep a political project going by competitive deflation in the
	countries of Europe. The best solution for the whole European economy is for an orderly break-up of the euro, particularly for those economies, such as Greece and probably Italy and Portugal, that are, in effect, bankrupt.

Christopher Leslie: I do not agree with my hon. Friend that the break-up of the euro would be in the UK’s interests, but there are dangers with a permanent deflationary lock in the fiscal policies of the eurozone countries. That is why, both in the UK and across the eurozone, far more must be done to get growth into those economies. They have to grow in order to build their way out of the hole that they are in. In that sense, the ambitions, which many people share, of improving infrastructure across the EU, while laudable, need to be seen in the context of the affordability criteria that must be applied to them. We have to act to unblock the clogged arteries of Europe, connecting the major cities of the continent, making it easier for business and opening new opportunities for growth in the single market. Capital investment in infrastructure is extremely important as a driver for growth.
	What progress are Ministers making in shaping the European spending review? That is absolutely at the heart of today’s debate. After December’s phantom veto—the first veto in history that stopped precisely nothing—the UK has to pick up the pieces and try to influence the important EU budget process. The Minister was throwing around history lessons about the common agricultural policy and various other things. However, we need to know what exactly this Government are going to do about the common agricultural policy. What is he going to do about the spending proposals? Rather than walking away before the negotiations even begin and leaving another empty chair, the Minister has to raise his voice, build some alliances and secure a more appropriate level of expenditure that also shifts priorities.

Peter Bone: We have an excellent shadow Minister, who is always on top of his brief, but I do not think he was here when Tony Blair gave a commitment that the CAP would be reformed, so that our net contributions to the EU now would be at the same level as they were then. Clearly that was wrong. Would the hon. Gentleman and his party support our most excellent Minister going into battle and saying, “We’re not going to pay any more than our initial subscription was to the EU”?

Christopher Leslie: I did not quite hear that from the Minister. If that is the Government’s position—perhaps the hon. Gentleman has a hotline to the Prime Minister on these matters—I would be very interested to hear it.
	I agree that the proposed budgets for EU institutions are still too high. Export refund practices have to be cut back. We have to change agriculture policy so that it is fairer to smaller farmers and ends the ridiculous tobacco and wine subsidies that are lavishing payments on some of the very wealthiest players in the wealthiest EU countries.

Angus MacNeil: I wonder what the hon. Gentleman’s proposals might mean for crofters in the highlands and islands of Scotland.

Christopher Leslie: We have to change the common agricultural policy. My point is that the CAP is far too heavily involved in subsidising the big multinational farming institutions, which are the largest agricultural producers, and is not fair enough on some of the smallest farmers and crofters.

Kelvin Hopkins: One simple point, which I have made before, is that if the common agricultural policy were abolished, we could continue to subsidise farmers at the same level and be net beneficiaries.

Christopher Leslie: There is much agreement on the need to reform the common agricultural policy. More should have been done in the past, but more needs to be done now. I want to hear the Government’s strategy on that. I want to hear how they are going to win some concessions and what they are doing to change the negotiation stance. They are certainly doing nothing about refocusing growth priorities or reforming the common agricultural policy.
	We have to re-order the connecting Europe facility so that we can phase capital infrastructure components and enhance employment and growth. While the 26 other countries are busy negotiating their new economic treaty without the UK taking part, they will realise that the EU budget is highly relevant to their economic predicament, particularly in the eurozone. I would therefore like to ask the Minister an important question: how will he ensure that he keeps track of all those discussions on the sidelines—all those deals being done in meetings that he will not be party to—so that the UK voice is part of the process?
	We are discussing an important series of proposals, which touch on broadband, transport and energy policy. A year ago, the Government unveiled their broadband strategy. It is becoming clear that the vast majority of local authorities are not likely to meet the Government’s universal broadband target by 2015, which has already slipped by a couple of years compared with the target that we set when in government. We tabled some freedom of information requests before the Christmas break and discovered that 70% of local councils said that they had
	“not made any plans, provisions or budgeted to take advantage of the Government’s funding allocation for broadband provision,”
	and that 74% had had no assessment made of the likelihood that the roll-out of superfast broadband in their areas would be completed by 2015. The Minister therefore needs to explain why a quarter of local authorities say that they have not even been contacted by BDUK—Broadband Delivery UK—about the need to secure funding; indeed, only a quarter have made plans to finance universal broadband roll-out. Even the Countryside Alliance and the Federation of Small Businesses agree that the Government are not doing enough to support Britain’s digital future.

Charlie Elphicke: It was the previous Labour Government’s policy to have a telephone tax. Does the shadow Minister still believe that the telephone tax is the right way forward? Yes or no?

Christopher Leslie: I really do not think that anybody was proposing a telephone tax in the sense that the hon. Gentleman characterises it. We have to find ways to fund improvements in broadband communication, but
	my question to him and the Government is this: what exactly is their target for broadband roll-out? They have still not said. The EU is talking about some 30 megabits per second and 50% at 100 megabits per second by 2020, which is quite an ambitious target, and we had our targets for 2012. Perhaps the Minister can consult his colleagues on that.

Chi Onwurah: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Christopher Leslie: I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment, but perhaps the Minister can listen to this. What exactly is the Government’s 2015 target, by megabits per second, for broadband roll-out? I would be very interested if he could elaborate on that. I will give way to the Minister if he has an answer to that, but perhaps my hon. Friend can also help me.

Chi Onwurah: My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. It should also be pointed out that the Labour party’s target for universal broadband was fully funded from the digital switchover. The Minister talks about the need for targeted infrastructure investment. Does my hon. Friend agree that what businesses need right now, particularly rural businesses up and down the country, is a decent broadband speed to enable them to get online and contribute to growth as part of our recovery?

Christopher Leslie: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is imperative that rural businesses should have that connectivity and that level of dialogue, e-mailing and information exchange as soon as possible. The data must be able to get out from those businesses and their localities. This delay and prevarication from the Government, in a strategy that does not even seem to have a target, is entirely atrocious.
	On transport, no one would disagree—there is quite a lot of cross-party consensus on this—that we have to tackle bottlenecks and missing cross-border links, and promote new ways of improving the single market. We agree with the Government that there are potentially added elements of bureaucracy in the proposed project management of the core networks which conflict with the principle of subsidiarity. There is a risk that the comprehensive networks, and not just the core corridors that the EU is focusing on, might lose out if structural funds are not available for UK transport infrastructure projects. We want the trans-European network policy to concentrate not just on jobs and growth, but on decarbonising the transport sector—a modal shift from road to rail, particularly for freight—on greater connectivity within networks and, of course, on improved transport safety. A transport infrastructure that addresses economic disparities, is aimed at delivering jobs and tackles the pinch points, gaps and capacity constraints in the EU networks is essential to tackling Europe’s continuing economic issues.
	The Commission is probably correct to highlight the infrastructural deficiencies in our collective electricity and gas networks. However, there are some highly prescriptive elements of the Commission’s proposals, which may not allow the right degree of flexibility to accommodate some of the domestic UK projects and procedures that are already under way. For instance,
	there is a danger of overlap of activity on the North sea interconnector, which is currently being examined for feasibility. As for planning issues, much of the streamlining process has already been dealt with through the Planning Act 2008, despite the fact that the Government have already stepped away from some of the benefits of the Infrastructure Planning Commission. We see no benefit in overlaying anything on top of that, leading to duplication and slowing processes down. We suggest that the Commission should instead concentrate its energy infrastructure proposals on the carbon capture and storage agenda.
	Existing procedures for bidding for EU funding are under way, but the value of the funding is affected by the carbon trading regime. In recent months it has fallen, making the available investment worth less. Carbon capture and storage could make a significant difference to the viability of fossil fuel electricity generation, and has yet to be proven on a commercial scale. The role of EU funding in this area is becoming more significant since the collapse of domestic carbon capture and storage projects here in the UK in the past year. Despite the Government’s promise that the £1 billion funding would remain available for CCS, it has now been reallocated to the wider infrastructure fund announced in the autumn statement, leaving carbon capture strategy in the UK in some doubt.
	The Minister mentioned the fact that the proposals touch on innovative financial instruments. There is a serious lack of clarity on what exactly the Commission is proposing, and what exactly the Government’s principles are on innovative financial instruments. We need more substantive debate on this matter, and more information ahead of the discussions. The Commission needs to reduce its proposed budget, and the Minister needs to get off the sidelines and step into the negotiations. The Government should be doing far more to reorder the phasing of the capital infrastructure schemes here in the UK and across Europe. Above all, they should develop more effective deficit reduction strategies at home and across the EU, with an urgent and credible plan for growth.

Andrea Leadsom: As I understand it, the EU’s ambition is to develop a trans-European network in transport, telecommunications and energy as part of the treaty on the functioning of the EU. It therefore wants the budget for 2014 to 2020 to include sufficient funds to put an extra €50 billion into a connecting Europe facility. However, it also wants to regulate EU-wide programmes. Specifically, on transport, it is proposing that member states commit to a core network by 2030, and to a comprehensive transport network by 2050. The EU estimates that it would cost Britain between £64 billion and £137 billion to meet those targets over that period. Does the Minister believe that if such a regulation were to come into force under qualified majority voting, it could force Britain to spend that amount of its own resources in a way that would be directed by the EU? That would be an astonishing outcome.
	On energy, the Commission believes that member states need to spend €200 billion on electricity and gas networks alone, and that €1 trillion is needed for EU energy infrastructure in total. Will the Minister tell me
	what proportion of that the UK would be required to spend, and whether that requirement would be enforceable at EU level under QMV?
	On telecoms, the EU target for rolling out broadband is different from that of the UK. The Commission believes that there are telecoms bottlenecks that hinder the single market. In the light of our own recent commitment to rolling out superfast broadband, I would be interested to know whether the Minister thinks that the British Government need the EU’s advice or the Commission’s targets on how, and to what level, we roll out superfast broadband here. Are those legitimate areas for the EU to be involved in, or are they domestic matters? Does the Minister see a pan-European angle to these questions or not?
	What is the Minister’s view of top-down EU expenditure, made entirely at the taxpayer’s expense, as opposed to private sector, or combined public and private sector, investment? Is he aware of any efforts by the Commission to test private sector interest in some of its pet schemes? What proportion of the roughly €7 billion that Britain’s taxpayers would contribute to the connection fund would be spent here, where there is a huge backlog of infrastructure needs, rather than elsewhere in Europe?
	I want to make three broad comments on the proposals, in support of the motion. First, I find it astonishing that the European Commission seems to be the only bit of Europe in which the recession, the financial crisis and the issues of sovereign insolvency have passed unnoticed. It is as though it were inhabiting a parallel universe.

Harriett Baldwin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the cost of moving from Brussels to Strasbourg on a regular basis is an ideal budget item to be struck through before forcing member states to spend money on these proposals?

Andrea Leadsom: Yes, I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s excellent idea. That would be high on my list of bits of wasteful bureaucracy to get rid of.
	What sort of parallel universe is the European Commission inhabiting, if it thinks it reasonable to be expanding the European budget for 2014 to 2020 in the current climate? Why is the EU seeking to take power and control over these particular policy areas, at a time when they are already high on our own Government’s agenda? Requiring Britain to contribute to EU funds is not acceptable, and giving the Commission the authority to require Britain to make expenditure on its own domestic projects is equally unacceptable.
	My second point is that the EU has proved itself time and again to be an inefficient allocator of scarce resources. In regard to structural funds, Open Europe estimates that Britain has contributed €33 billion between 2007 and 2013, and that we have received roughly €9 billion. If we took back control over that €33 billion, we might well wish to continue to contribute to the poorer EU member states—that is, those with a national income of 90% of the average or less. However, if we had contributed the same amount to those poorer member states, we could also have spent the same €9 billion that we received from the structural fund, creating a £4 billion saving. If Britain had allocated that same amount, €9 billion, to its own regions, plus the same amount to the poorer EU states, there would have been a £4 billion
	saving that could have gone towards reducing our deficit or investing further in the poorer regions of the UK. The difference identified by Open Europe’s estimate is a result of the leakage due to the recycling of cash between the richer countries.
	It is interesting to note that the Department for International Development spends about 4% of its budget on administration, with a target of 2%. In contrast, the EU Commission spends 5.4% of its contributions to overseas aid on administration. No doubt it is very conscious of that figure, as it has been singled out for comment.

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Lady is making quite an interesting point, but does she not agree that the problem with her argument is that the British state does not have any convergence mechanisms?

Andrea Leadsom: I am sorry, but I am going to have to ask the hon. Gentleman to repeat his question. It does not have any what?

Jonathan Edwards: It does not have any convergence mechanisms for redistributing wealth around the British state; that is the whole problem.

Andrea Leadsom: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He makes a good point, and he is absolutely right. It might interest him to know, however, that of the UK’s 37 regions—as defined by the EU—only two, Cornwall and west Wales, are net recipients of structural funds. All the other regions have been net contributors, including the highlands and islands region, which has contributed a net €66 million to structural funds over the past seven years, and the Tees valley and Durham region, which has contributed a net €453 million over that same period. He makes an interesting point, but in my view Britain would be far better placed to decide where to allocate those scarce resources.
	Another illustration of the EU’s inability to do that job is the recent Commission study that found that 170,000 full-time equivalent personnel were needed for a whole year to administer the EU’s structural funds during the last budgetary period. That is an unbelievable number of people. On the grounds of efficiency, therefore, the allocation of funds would be far better being done at home.
	My third point relates to legitimacy and localism, particularly in the areas of transport and energy. We are talking about huge, extraordinarily expensive projects that are deemed to be in the national interest. There is no doubt that, while we all want instant access to energy, we are not all so keen to have a nuclear power station two miles down the road. The case must always be made by democratically elected, legitimate leaders of the need for a particular project and/or location. HS2 is a very good example of a project on which a majority of those consulted rejected it, yet where the Government decided that it was in the national interest to disregard their views. In the case of the third runway at Heathrow, the Government decided that public opinion outweighed the national need for aviation expansion. My point is that the EU, with its remote and bureaucratic image in Britain, is hardly the right place from where decisions on projects that affect lives and communities should be
	taken. The great risk is that local priorities for infrastructure will be undermined while infrastructure for energy and transport projects will be forced on local communities that do not want them.
	Let me end with a word of friendly advice to the European Commission. It should focus on facilitating the single market, expanding its membership and contributing to areas that are of common interest to all member states and where the EU together can add value. It should keep away from European domestic affairs and avoid the pernicious creeping power grab that this latest proposal so clearly highlights.

Jonathan Edwards: I disagree with the Government motion. I do so in part because the economic and financial position set out in it is in opposition to the policies I have espoused since I was elected, and I oppose it in particular because it would have the effect of further disadvantaging my constituents and my country.
	The budget for the entire European Union looks small by comparison when placed in the context of national budgets. The majority of expenditure is on items related to agriculture and to those parts of the European Union that qualify for the cohesion fund in order to promote those areas so that their gross value added is increased to compete with more established areas of the European economy. What a pity that the British state does not employ similar convergence mechanisms! I hope that explains my earlier intervention.
	The cohesion fund areas include my constituency in the west Wales and the valleys region. Whatever the arguments for the whole of the UK, and we have heard many powerful arguments to that effect, the redistributive nature of European funding is beneficial for many of my constituents. Indeed, the €50 billion recommended by the Commission in the next multi-annual financial framework for the connecting Europe facility specifically includes 20% ring-fenced in the cohesion fund for transport infrastructure.

Anne Main: I come from Wales, so I might have to declare an interest in this matter. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that a European state is better at giving money to his constituency than people who are already within the UK?

Jonathan Edwards: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention; I shall touch on that as I continue with my speech. That is certainly the case as far as transport investment in Wales is concerned.
	In terms of the TEN-T—the trans-European transport network—the proposals for UK core nodes show little connection with the needs of Wales and the improvement of Welsh infrastructure, which is key to developing the economic prospects of Wales. None of the nine urban nodes are in Wales—neither the Cardiff nor the Swansea city regions—while Cardiff airport is not included in the airports provisions. Although Cardiff and Newport ports are both included among the 15 named ports, neither is in the west Wales and the valleys areas that receive cohesion fund support.
	The Commission determines a Dublin-London-Paris-Brussels corridor—corridor 8, which includes a route from Belfast to Birmingham through Holyhead. However, critically, no southern corridor route through Wales is referenced among these major routes. Milford Haven in south Wales is the third largest port in the British state and an ideal point for a southern corridor route to and from the southern parts of the Republic of Ireland. I notice that Cork—a port, and the obvious linkage between the Republic of Ireland and Wales—is instead linked with Dublin, Southampton and Le Havre. If Wales were an independent country inside the European Union, it is difficult to imagine that it would be neglected in this way by the European Commission. A designated route along south Wales would bring significant economic benefits to the region, including to the communities I represent in Carmarthenshire, as well as the future development of Milford Haven as a port.
	Having spoken to representatives of the Milford Haven Port authority, I understand that Milford Haven meets all the requirements of the European Commission. It is among Europe’s largest 80 ports and handles cargo of more than 43 million tonnes. It is a core link between the Republic of Ireland and Europe. Does the UK Government’s refusal of the connecting Europe facility mean that west Wales is being let down not just by the European commissioners, but by the London Government who are not fighting for the necessary improvements?
	The UK Government will know that I have been a keen supporter of the electrification of the great western line not just to Swansea, but further to the west of Wales, and especially through my constituency in Carmarthenshire. It remains a disgrace on the part of the British state that while Glasgow to London was electrified as far back as 1974, the electrification from London, even as far as Cardiff, still remains in the planning stages and about 80% of even that electrification will take place in England.
	Electrification is one of the criteria for rail in the comprehensive network, yet electrification of the north Wales coast line or the great western main line west of Cardiff are apparently not up for discussion—even though these would largely qualify for cohesion fund support. I hope this clarifies my response to the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main). To what extent was this considered when the business case for electrification to south Wales was put forward, particularly with regard to the port of Milford Haven? Given the answers I have received to written parliamentary questions since May 2010, I imagine that little thought has been put into this proposal, as no estimate has been made of the cost of electrification for the areas past Swansea, despite the importance of the ports of Fishguard and Milford Haven. Rail connection from London through Bristol, Cardiff and Swansea itself is, in the annex to the proposal of 24 October 2011, identified as part of corridor 8, and it is described as “upgrading”.
	We know, of course, that without a U-turn from the UK Government the electrification will go only as far as Cardiff. The European Commission thinks that electrification to Swansea is important as part of Europe-wide rail and transport links, but the UK Government do not, it seems. In a nutshell, here is one reason why my party prefers full member status within the European Union to the present constitutional position. While the EU shows interest in cross-European co-operation and
	investment, UK policy in recent decades has been increasingly to concentrate on promoting one part of the British state down here in London.
	As to the remainder of the proposals, we welcome the support provision for telecommunications in the Commission’s recommendations. When we were in government in Wales, the increase in broadband across Wales was a major plank of my party’s economic renewal plan. Improved telecommunications allows Welsh businesses and Welsh customers to be at the heart of Europe in a way that occasionally our geography does not. That applies particularly to digital connectedness in rural areas such as my own constituency. Will the Government confirm that, despite their opposition to the proposals in the Commission’s draft regulations, the digital facilities in Wales will be at least as good as the goals identified in the digital agenda for Europe and that support for cross-EU help for businesses and individuals will be similarly provided?
	On energy, we support the fastest possible and credible reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and a switch to renewable energies from fossil fuels. It is only a shame that Wales is not an independent country able to control its own energy mix and that major energy decisions are made for us instead here in London—either via the Infrastructure Planning Commission or in future by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. As a country, we generate more electricity than we consume, so transmission is always a very important issue. I must refer once again to Milford Haven—an important energy portal where liquefied natural gas is imported from across the world.
	To conclude, my party’s policy throughout the economic crisis since 2007 has been to argue that capital infrastructure spending is vital for the revival of the economy in both the short and longer term—maintaining the construction industry in the short term and increasing opportunities for the future. In Wales—a country that has the same amount of electrified railway as Albania and Moldova, and whose transport infrastructure is geared to move extremely slowly from east to west and not from north to south—infrastructure investment is important.
	Wales sees many benefits from the European Union, not least from the common agricultural policy and from the cohesion fund. However, these proposals from the European Commission do not go far enough in supporting infrastructure improvements in Wales, yet they are ironically being rejected by the UK Government because they involve spending too much. I call on various Ministers in this place and in the Welsh Government to work together with the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament to achieve a better deal for Wales in the connecting Europe facility.

Penny Mordaunt: I welcome the Government’s approach to this and connected issues. I agree that large increases in EU spending are not acceptable at present, and that they jar with the necessary and tough measures required by member states to tackle their deficits. Measures that would impose substantial bureaucracy and associated costs on member states, and on our local authorities and businesses, are both unwelcome and unnecessary. Allowing such decisions
	to remain with member states would not erect a barrier to the progress of schemes that would benefit the single market.
	It will come as no surprise to many Members who are present, particularly the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), that I intend to speak mainly about funds for the core and comprehensive transport networks, as I never need much excuse to start talking about trains. The main purpose of the funds is to promote co-operation and co-ordination. We need only look back to the early days of rail to see that that is very important. In the 1870s, the Great Western Railway was busily laying a gauge of 7 feet while every other company was busily laying gauges of 4 feet 8 inches, and better planning would certainly have saved Brunel and his contemporaries a lot of grief, but such co-operation does not require us to pay into a centrally administered fund. We should spend the money on projects that benefit the UK directly, which would not preclude co-operation.
	Transport spending must be directed towards projects that will support growth and investment in member states, but that should be a matter for individual member states. The Government are prioritising new projects that will yield a substantial return on investment, such as High Speed 2, Crossrail, Thameslink and, in order to make faster journeys possible, the electrification of key routes such as the First Great Western service between London and Cardiff, the First TransPennine Express route from York, Leeds and Manchester, and services between Liverpool, Preston and Manchester. Many of the schemes are controversial, and following consultation the Government have made changes. What chance would our citizens have to influence such schemes if the decisions were not made by the Governments of member states?
	As well as yielding a good return on investment, the Government’s schemes will reduce the impact on the environment, and the aim will be to keep pace with public demand in terms of both capacity and quality. Other member states should be doing likewise. I am concerned about the idea of the UK’s paying into a fund and receiving very little back, in the form of either infrastructure or benefit from a scheme in another member state. I think that that is true of any member state, but our geography makes it doubly true of us.
	According to my quick and dirty assessment, given the focus on the missing border links scheme and other measures intended to support growth in the single market, many schemes favoured by the UK would be very low in the pecking order were the Commission’s proposal to proceed. Moreover, member states would be given no incentive to put their own houses in order and prioritise spending, because some of the criteria for the operation of the fund would be skewed towards states that had continually failed to get to grips with balancing their books and controlling their spending.
	As Ministers will know, my hobby horse extends beyond greener and faster transport to comfort standards and the opportunity presented by rail franchises. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is a neighbour of mine, will know of the campaign to prevent South West Trains from continually replacing rolling stock that it should be using for main line services with substandard suburban stock. Those issues are not as high-profile or sexy as the issue of new routes, but they
	are very important to the public, and they affect the viability of particular modes of passenger transport as much as new routes.
	In a short space of time, franchise agreements and many other factors will present us with real opportunities. We need to seize those opportunities, and given that they will be time-sensitive, the more healthy our financial position and the more flexibility we have in making decisions and attracting investors, the better. I am firmly in favour of member states retaining as much control as possible over these investment funds.

Kelvin Hopkins: I strongly support the amendment and its heavy emphasis on growth, because growth is the way to reduce deficits. Members who have seen The Independent today will know that our deficit is rather lower than those of many other major European member states, and that our biggest debt is located in the banks rather than in state spending. The fact remains, however, that the way to lower deficits is to achieve growth. Creating employment and ensuring that people pay taxes rather than living on benefits is the way forward.
	I agreed with most of what was said by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who is no longer in the Chamber. In particular, I agreed with the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who pointed out that we do not need the European Union or the European Commission to tell member states what they need and what they should build, and to spend our money for us. Member states themselves know best what they need, and what should be done to meet those needs. International co-ordination is best achieved through bilateral and multilateral agreement and collaboration, rather than through the bureaucratic controls imposed by the European Union.
	Big infrastructure has indeed been built by European national Governments, especially rail freight infrastructure. We have our own channel tunnel, which is a product not of the European Union but of a collaboration between France and Britain. We have the channel tunnel rail link, which is also nothing to do with the European Union. We have rail tunnels through the alps, built to a broad gauge that enables trains to carry lorries and double-stack containers and providing a freight link from southern to northern Europe. Those were built by states using state funds. The Brenner pass, a 28-mile tunnel built to a broad gauge through faulted rock, also carries freight between northern and southern Europe, and it too is the work of member states rather than the European Union. We have the Betuweroute, another broad-gauge freight route linking Rotterdam to the Ruhr. When I visited it, I asked who had paid for it. I was told, “The Dutch Government, of course.” The state bears the cost, not the European Union.
	We know that the EU offers token amounts to investment projects to try to confer some relevance, presence and significance on itself, but that is not the real deal. The real deal is that states decide what they want and need and pay for it—sometimes with private finance, but largely with state funds—and, on occasion, collaborate with neighbouring states to ensure that things work well.
	What the United Kingdom needs is investment in a dedicated rail freight line from the channel tunnel to Glasgow. Although we are somewhat peripheral to the continent in geographical terms, we need to be linked with its economy. I refer to the continent rather than the European Union because we are talking about the whole continent, which extends beyond the bounds of the European Union as it is currently constituted.
	We need to be linked to the continent by freight as well as passenger rail, and that will be possible only if the delivery system on this side of the channel is capable of taking trains carrying lorries and full-scale and double-stack containers, and, indeed, continental-gauge trains, which cannot gain access to our platforms or our tunnels. In fact, I have been involved with a scheme—which I have mentioned in the Chamber a number of times in the past—to build a line from the channel tunnel to Glasgow, linking all the major conurbations of Britain and capable of doing all the things that I have just mentioned.

Peter Bone: The hon. Gentleman is making an enormously powerful speech, as he normally does on these issues. Does he share my concern about the fact that, although members of his party and the nationalist parties have been in the Chamber today and the Conservative Benches are full, not a single Liberal Democrat Member has been present? Given that the Liberal Democrats make such a fuss about Europe and restrict what the coalition can do about it, where on earth are they?

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but I have to say that the Liberal Democrats are in a coalition with his own party. It is his grief rather than ours, I think, so I will not intrude.
	To an extent, work on a dedicated rail freight line has already begun. A terminal at Barking is taking trains from as far afield as Poland. However, although they can travel as far as Barking using the channel tunnel rail link, they can proceed no further because the gauge will not allow it.
	According to an old chestnut, if we build HS2 we shall be able to take the passengers off the west coast main line and free it up for freight, but making that line capable of taking continental-gauge trains, double-stack containers and lorries would be prohibitively expensive. We need to build a line to take the freight off the west and east coast main lines and off our roads, so that the lines can be freed up for more and faster passenger trains and we can provide more capacity for passengers travelling to the north while taking as much traffic as possible off the roads. It is estimated that we could take 5 million lorry journeys off our roads simply by building that route, which would be economically viable and cheap to build.
	The scheme has a precise route that uses old track bed and under-used lines, and requires only 14 miles of new track, mostly in tunnels. It will be easy to construct, it will not cause any environmental problems as the track bed is already there and it will be cheap to build. Some estimate that the whole route will cost as little as less than £4 billion. We have put in an estimate of £6 billion, which is still a third or so of what we will spend on Crossrail—I support Crossrail—and a tiny fraction of what will be spent on HS2, yet we would get an enormous advantage to our economy and transform
	road transport in Britain as we would not get the road damage caused by lorries as the freight would be on trains instead.
	The scheme would attractive to hauliers because they would not need to worry about drivers’ hours problems. They could put their lorry trailers on trains in Glasgow, south Lancashire, south Yorkshire or the north-east and, eventually, in the south-west and south Wales, and overcome such problems. On the question of unemployment, there is a shortage of long-distance lorry drivers because it is not a popular job. It takes people away from home and it is very difficult. The little group proposing the scheme even has a major haulier working with it.
	That scheme is what Britain needs. It is nothing to do with the European Union, which would not pay for it—we would. It would offer value for money, it would be profitable and economical and it is vital for our future. I hope that both the Government and my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will listen carefully to our suggestion.

Charlie Elphicke: I, too, support the motion, although it is, as always, a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), with whom I sit on the Select Committee. I support very many of his considered views on Europe.
	This strikes me as a classic European measure with excessive spending, excessive bureaucracy and excessive meddling. As the Minister said, the amount required will shoot up from about €7 billion to €50 billion. That is excessive at a time when no sensible Government and no sensible European Union or Commission would want to increase spending.
	Another thing that I find extraordinarily bizarre is the idea of a core network, core corridors and corridor co-ordinators. It is yet another nascent European bureaucracy to build up extra numbers of people in Brussels and large programme management costs, and it seems to me to offend against the principle of subsidiarity—as has been said, this should be done more nationally—and to feed the unnecessary bureaucracy in Brussels. The key question, to my mind, is the concern that the so-called corridor co-ordinators who seem to have crept in could become corridor meddlers and start telling member states what to do, issuing directions and making orders. That is entirely undesirable.
	It is much better for there to be co-operation between nations, which is the principal reason I wanted to speak. There is a lot to be said for nations working together on cross-border transport corridors. The draft proposals—as beautifully and lucidly set out in the explanatory memorandum that the Minister of State tabled last November—talk about core network corridors, which the Commission defines as
	“an instrument to implement the Core Network. Each Corridor must involve at least three Member States. Will be based on modal integration and interoperability and have a coordinated development plan and management structure.”
	That is classic European-speak. I do not think that that needs to be done by the European Commission; it could be done by the UK and individual nations, working to improve cross-border networks. That is particularly
	important for the transport networks in Kent, which join the rest of the continent to our country and our transport networks so well.
	My principal concern is that for many years there has been under-investment in those networks. We have the M20, which is a kind of concrete motorway, and the A2, which has been waiting to be upgraded. On the continent, likewise, the road network, as anyone who has travelled there knows, could be better. A key area for cross-border co-operation could be for the UK Government to consider how those networks could be improved along with the French, the Belgians and the Dunkirk port. A map of Europe shows the so-called golden banana stretching from south-east England towards lower Bavaria, at the heart of which is the Dover strait and the Dover-Calais crossing. Indeed, the Dover-Dunkirk crossing is an important part of the communication and trading links that are so important to our nation’s prosperity and to that of Europe.
	If, despite our warnings in today’s debate, the fund is to be extended as suggested, it should not be invested in rail networks in Romania, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) suggested it might be, but in upgrading international transport links between the UK and other countries in the so-called golden banana to help Europe to grow. It is important that we have more growth in Europe and that we support first the area that can provide the value added and recovery generation to drive our European economy forward. My plea to the Financial Secretary and to the Minister of State is to meet me to discuss what we can do in Kent to make the case to France and our friends in Belgium to ensure that we at least get a fair part of the fund to see whether we can improve the transport networks in Kent and take forward the lower Thames crossing.

William Cash: The problem with this over-arching proposal is basically that it will be carried by qualified majority vote and is therefore, in effect, a form of taxation. Whatever proportion of that overall budget of £43.7 billion eventually falls on the United Kingdom, the Committee of which I have the honour to serve as Chairman believes that the scale of the Commission’s ambition for the 2014 to 2020 financial period is clearly unacceptable. On that basis, there is no doubt that the thrust of the Government’s motion is correct.
	Although I happen to agree with the proposals on growth in the Opposition motion, the fact is that the Opposition are guilty of having severely restricted any opportunity for growth through the massive increase in public expenditure that they imposed on the United Kingdom. I and two or three other Conservative Members continually attacked that increase for the best part of three years and, as I repeatedly said at the time, there was no proposal for growth, which was connected to the problems of over-regulation, of which these proposals are yet another example.
	The truth is that there should have been a full debate—there still might yet be an opportunity for such a debate—on what is going wrong with the European Union as a whole. That debate is necessary because, as the Government have pointed out, the EU is calling on
	member states such as ourselves to produce more money for projects that could be better carried out under the so-called principle of subsidiarity at a national level.
	At the same time, it is abundantly clear that there is no money in the European coffers. We should be debating the eurozone crisis as a whole in a three-hour debate on the Floor of the House, which my Committee has unanimously called on the Government to provide, but when I and my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) repeated our calls this morning for a general debate it was denied by the Government, yet again.

Peter Bone: On that point, the Backbench Business Committee can, of course, grant a full-day debate on Thursday of next week if the Government release that day, which they are holding back for a general debate. Would my hon. Friend urge the Chief Whip to consider doing that?

William Cash: I certainly would. I endorse that course of action, and I would be grateful if the Whips on duty would pass that message to the Chief Whip—and, indeed, the Leader of the House—because we are faced with a monumental crisis in the European Union. That is only a symptom of the problem, which is generated by the intrinsic defects of the accumulated treaties, particularly since the Maastricht treaty in the 1990s.
	So much is decided by qualified majority vote despite the fact that we currently face such severe restrictions and so much austerity, which is causing difficulties for our hospitals, schools, transport and so much else. Proportionality in respect of allocations is required. Getting that balance right is vital for our national interest. We should therefore have a debate on the Floor of the House, and not only on this one issue, important though it is.
	I attended the multiannual financial meeting of about eight weeks ago as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee on behalf of the United Kingdom national Parliament, and I felt compelled to get up and complain bitterly about the complete “Alice in Wonderland” attitude that prevailed there. People were calling for an ever-greater increase in the amount of money that should be made available to the EU, and they were justifying that by reference to the Lisbon treaty, for example. They said that as the functions had grown, there ought to be more money. There is absolutely no recognition of the fact that there is simply not enough money to go around. We should be proceeding on the basis that we must reduce, rather than merely freeze, the budget.
	The Government motion is right, therefore. However, we are facing demands from the financial transaction tax—I accept that we can veto that—and there are also attempts to stop our rebate and proposals to increase own-resources. Cumulatively, those moves are putting pressure on us to move in the wrong direction. There are great opportunities for the UK in a trading environment that is global—across the world, rather than just in the EU, important though that may be—and that is the direction we should be going in. All transport issues, including aviation policy and the development of our local infrastructure, should be taken by ourselves in the interests of the UK, rather than determined by QMV involving the other member states.
	The European project is completely misconceived, and it is failing; the eurozone crisis will ultimately lead to collapse. The current situation is rather like the phoney war of 1938 and 1939: everybody knows the situation is doomed, but they are continuing to pretend that somehow something will turn up.
	My message is that the Government motion is right in general, but that there is not enough determination to renegotiate the treaties. I welcome the veto, but once we cross the Rubicon, we cannot cross back. The reality is that any attempt to do so will meet with disaster, division and acrimony.
	I am glad that we have had this debate, but there are also more important matters that must be debated as a matter of urgency. As I and my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough, for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), for Bury North and many others have said, we must have a proper debate on the extent, range and depth of the eurozone crisis and its impact on the UK.
	We must also explore the other key issues facing us, such as why we are being confronted with QMV decisions to impose what is, in effect, a form of taxation to provide for certain facilities. Such decisions should be made on a bilateral national basis. It is not anti-European to say that is what we should do, because doing that is in the interests of Europe. What Europe is doing, however, is determinedly pursuing a completely false prospectus and then compounding that—sadly, with our Government in agreement, it appears—by proposing that we should find yet more devious means of providing money through the IMF to support what is an insupportable project. That simply flies in the face of common sense.

Peter Bone: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who is, as ever, absolutely right in all he says.
	On the issue of our having a day-long debate on Europe, I am pleased the Deputy Leader of the House is present. The Leader of the House is right that the Backbench Business Committee has been given the authority to authorise debates. If we were to have a bid for such a debate at one of our Committee meetings—which are held on Tuesdays at 1 o’clock—I think it would be given very careful consideration. The problem we have is that the Government do not allocate days to us far in advance. From what the Leader of the House said, we know that Thursday of next week has been allocated for a general debate, although at present a general debate in Government time. If the Government were to release that to the Backbench Business Committee, we could consider this question on Tuesday, and if there was a representation from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone—and, perhaps, other Members—we could have such a debate on Europe.
	It concerns me that so few Liberal Democrat Members are present for the debate on this motion. I am not concerned that we are missing their contributions, because what they would say would not be worth hearing. My concern is that they might be boycotting again. Is this the Deputy Prime Minister’s attempt to have another boycott?

James Clappison: The general debate that my hon. Friend is arguing for is directly relevant to the motion, because tens of billions of pounds in extra expenditure will have to be found, and a large and disproportionate amount of that will have to come from this country. Some of that will come out of general taxation under the funding mechanism for the EU, adding to our indebtedness—and presumably other member states will face a similar situation.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Edward Vaizey: As he always is.

Peter Bone: I concur with that remark, of course.
	I do not blame any Member currently sitting on the Opposition Front Bench for this, but the real scandal of the last Labour Government is what Tony Blair did. I do not blame Mr Blair either, because he may well have believed at the time that what he was saying was true. He stood at the Dispatch Box and gave away an enormous amount of Mrs Thatcher’s rebate, which has led to an enormous increase in the amount we are having to contribute to the EU budget. He believed that would not happen because there would be major reform of the common agricultural policy. That has not happened, but I give him the benefit of the doubt on that. The Labour Front-Bench team may well support Mr Blair’s original position, so will the Labour Opposition and the splendid ministerial team we have combine and go to Europe and say to them, “Because you haven’t kept your part of the bargain in reforming the CAP, we will only pay the amount of money we were paying under the previous Government”? The sum in question is £19 billion over a five-year period. That is an enormous amount of money to join a club that does nothing for this country. But if we kept to that £19 billion, we would free up more than £21 billion during this Conservative coalition Government.
	Many hon. Members have talked about growth, but nobody has really suggested how it could be achieved. I suggest that the £21 billion of extra money that would come to the Government as a result of paying only the amount that we were paying previously could be used either for tax cuts, which would be my preference, or for infrastructure plans, as the hon. Members for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) were suggesting. Alternatively, some of the money could go on tax cuts and some could go on infrastructure. That would not cost the taxpayer a penny, because all we would be saying to Europe would be, “We are paying just the £19 billion over five years as the ridiculous amount of money for our subscription to the European Union.” So instead of paying £41 billion for joining this club we would be paying £19 billion. If hon. Members think that I am being unfair to the European Union on this point, they should consider the reality of what happens. This is not just about the £7 billion or £10 billion that our “net contribution” is each year, because the EU actually takes £14 billion or £15 billion. [Hon. Members: “£18 billion.”] Oh, it has gone up. The money goes to the European Commission, which then gives some of it back to be spent on its pet projects, which it thinks should be what we want in this country—we should have control of that.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: What is even worse is that the EU, when it has spent our money, then has the cheek to fine people for failing to fly the European flag. The way in which it wastes British taxpayers’ money is just absolutely disgraceful.

Peter Bone: Of course my hon. Friend makes eminent sense, as always.
	There is something even more worrying about this situation: all these billions of pounds are going into the European Union but it cannot even get its auditors to give it a clean bill of health—the accounts are rejected year after year. We would not give money to any other organisation—in this country—that did not have audited accounts.

James Clappison: My hon. Friend is raising an interesting point about how much of this money, were it to be granted—I hope it is not—is likely to be spent in this country. Has it escaped his eagle eye that a substantial proportion of the money referred to in the documents before the House—€10 billion-worth—is ring-fenced for the cohesion countries, and so not a single penny of that can come to this country? I have looked at these documents and if they are approved—I hope they will not be—it appears unlikely that very much money would come to this country as a result.

Peter Bone: That point was made eloquently in the debate earlier, and I noted with interest that only two regions in this country would benefit from any of that funding. My objection is not at all to what the Government are doing in this motion—it is a fine motion and in recent months the Government have been absolutely spot on. I will not say when they started to change their position on this—[Interruption.] If Ministers want to know when they changed it, I shall tell them. I believe it was after that little vote on a Backbench Business Committee motion when there was some division within the Conservative party. I urge all Members to support the Government today and oppose Labour’s opportunistic amendment—let us win handsomely.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 182, Noes 281.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 16176/11 and Addenda 1 and 2, No. 16499/11, No. 16006/11 and Addenda 1 and 2, No. 15629/11 and Addenda 1 to 35, No. 15813/11 and Addenda 1 and 2, relating to the European Commission’s draft regulations on the Connecting Europe Facility in the next Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-20; supports the Government’s view that at a time of ongoing economic fragility in Europe and tight constraints on domestic public spending, the Commission’s proposal for substantial increases in EU spending in this area compared with current spend is unacceptable and incompatible with the tough decisions being taken to bring deficits under control in both the UK and countries across Europe; considers that spending in this area should focus on identifying and providing genuine EU-added value, and not on spending where domestic governments and the market are better placed to act; and further supports the Government’s ongoing efforts to reduce both the Commission’s proposed budget for the Connecting Europe Facility and the overall level of spending in the next Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-20.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Could those Members who are not staying for the next debate please leave the Chamber quickly and quietly?

Public Bodies

David Heath: I beg to move,
	That the following new Standing Order be made—
	‘(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the select committee charged with reporting on a draft order for the purposes of section 11(5) and (6) of the Public Bodies Act 2011 shall be—
	(a) the select committee appointed under Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to Government departments) appointed to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Department of the Minister who has laid the draft order; or
	(b) in respect of a draft order laid by a Minister in the Cabinet Office, the Select Committee on Public Administration.
	(2) The Liaison Committee may report that it has designated a select committee appointed under Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to Government departments) or the Select Committee on Public Administration as the select committee charged with reporting on a specified draft order for the purposes of section 11(5) and (6) of the Public Bodies Act 2011 in place of the select committee to which paragraph (1) applies.’.
	Let me start by apologising to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House, because what remains of my voice may be barely adequate to the task this afternoon. However, I shall do my best.
	The Public Bodies Act 2011 received Royal Assent shortly before Christmas. The Act represents a central part of the Government’s strategy for the reform of public bodies, which will lead to a cumulative reduction in administrative spending of £2.6 billion over the spending review period. The bodies to be reformed under the Act are listed in its schedules and the detail of the reforms is to be set out in secondary legislation. The motion will enable that secondary legislation to be subject to proper scrutiny in the House, when it is in draft form, before it is approved by the House. The relevant provisions of the Act are described in the explanatory memorandum to the Act and the proposals in the motion are described in an explanatory memorandum that is available in the Vote Office. The motion has been the subject of consultation with the Liaison Committee and the Select Committee on Procedure, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friends the Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) for their contributions to the consultation and for agreeing to add their names to the motion.
	The proposal relates to the specific question of which Committee should be able to examine a draft order with a view to the possible use of the extended period for scrutiny, and then making recommendations on the substantive provisions of that draft order. We propose that that role should fall to the relevant departmental Select Committee or, in the case of draft orders laid by Cabinet Office Ministers, to the Select Committee on Public Administration. In addition, we propose to give the Liaison Committee a power to designate an alternative Committee. We do not expect that to be used frequently, but it could be helpful if there were machinery of government changes in the future.
	We believe that departmental Select Committees represent the right option in this case. They are most likely to have a prior knowledge of, and interest in, the subject
	matter of the draft orders. The Liaison Committee has agreed that the proposal in the motion
	“seems sensible and complements the arrangements in the Lords”.
	The Liaison Committee sought a number of assurances, and it was particularly valuable to have the short delay from before Christmas until now in which to have a dialogue with the Liaison Committee. I have responded in detail, in correspondence which is available in the Vote Office and which I will place, in due course, in the Library. In particular, steps have been taken to ensure that relevant Select Committees are informed about the earlier draft orders to be laid before the House, and that discussions can take place between Departments and Select Committees about the operation of the procedure and the timetable in particular cases.

James Gray: Although I strongly endorse and very much agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying about Select Committees examining these orders, does he not agree that Select Committees are already heavily overburdened, given the amount of work that they are doing? I wonder when he thinks we shall find time to look into the orders in the way that he describes.

David Heath: Obviously, that was one consideration. Against that should be set the question of who is best placed to know the operations of bodies within the remit of an individual Select Committee, and what the Department’s objectives are in bringing forward an order. It would be very difficult for any other body in the House to have the same level of expertise. In the initial stages it is a matter of determining whether further scrutiny is required. That is the trigger that we are asking the Select Committees to pull, and they are very well positioned to do so. There is also a finite number of bodies for any one Select Committee in the Public Bodies Act 2011. It is not an open-ended Act, as I know full well, having assisted with the Bill’s Committee and Report stages. There is therefore a reasonable expectation that the task will not be too onerous for Select Committees. I certainly discussed that consideration with the Liaison Committee and others, and we felt that at the end of the day no other body was as well suited as the departmental Select Committee.

Andrea Leadsom: What procedure, if any, might a Back Bencher be able to use to propose further scrutiny by a Select Committee over and above what it is tasked with doing? For example, if we wanted the Treasury Committee to scrutinise some of the EU financial services legislation that passes through the House, which is normally, rightly, in the hands of the European Scrutiny Committee, would there be a way in which one could put that forward?

David Heath: That takes me away a little from the matter of orders relating to the Public Bodies Act, but it is always open for Select Committees to consider their work programmes and to put forward proposals, and it is equally open to hon. Members to make suggestions to Select Committees. Part of the Liaison Committee’s role is to try to prevent any undue overlapping of work among Committees and, where there is a potential trespass, to police it, adjudicate and find a successful way forward. There is probably no obstacle to my hon. Friend's suggesting that the Committee looks at something,
	but equally the Officers, Clerks and Chair of that Committee have a responsibility to ensure that they do not inappropriately usurp the work of another Committee.

Greg Knight: I commiserate with my hon. Friend, who sounds like a cross between Barry White and Louis Armstrong. Is he aware that the Procedure Committee has looked at this matter and is satisfied with what he proposes? Despite the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), who is a valued Committee member, I do not think that the proposal will place too great an additional burden on Select Committees. It is right and proper that the Select Committees undertake such scrutiny.

David Heath: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for supporting the view I have expressed. I think that only the departmental Select Committees could do the job appropriately.

Joan Walley: Will the Deputy Leader of the House say a little more about how he proposes to deal with cross-cutting Select Committees, particularly the Environmental Audit Committee, which does not follow one Department but has an obvious interest in some cross-cutting issues and the need for the Government to join up policy?

David Heath: I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but let us remember that the proposal is for a trigger mechanism to enable the House to consider matters further; it is not an end in itself. The process as set out in the 2011 Act enables the House to say, “Hang on. We want a little longer to be able to discuss this matter”, or for the Minister to put forward proposals in a debate, normally on the Floor of the House if that is requested. Therefore, if one of the cross-cutting Committees has an interest, I am sure that it would rapidly communicate it to the relevant Departmental Select Committee, and that in itself might pull the trigger. I do not think that there is a difficulty. This is not an exclusionary procedure, but simply one suggesting that someone can say, “Stop. We want this extra time so that the House can consider this on its merits”, and the decision will probably be that the departmental Select Committee is best placed to do that.

Mark Williams: I very much welcome what my hon. Friend is putting forward. May I ask him about joint working by Select Committees? As he knows from the passage of the 2011 Act, I have an interest in the position of S4C. There have been times in the work we have undertaken on S4C when there has been joint working between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Welsh Affairs Committee. Does he envisage such joint working continuing under this approach?

David Heath: I was beginning to think that we would have a short debate relating to the Act without any mention of Sianel Pedwar Cymru, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for rectifying that omission. I reiterate that I do not think that the proposed procedure creates any obstacle to a Select Committee going about its work in the way it feels is appropriate. This is a trigger mechanism for the House. Where more than one Committee feels that they might have a role, the Liaison Committee
	would be able to help and ensure that there were no hurt feelings. The case of S4C might be an obvious example of where two departmental Select Committees have a legitimate interest and, I am sure, would want to express a view at some point in the procedure.

Anne McIntosh: I hope to make a speech later, but, on the discussions between Departments and Select Committees, what procedures will be followed when a Department is not keen to give the most desirable outcome of 30 days’ advance notice in all cases?

David Heath: It is clear, from the exchanges that we have already had with the Procedure and Liaison Committees, that we expect Departments to provide that level of notice, and they will normally do so, but there is an exceptional position in the very first instance. We have some bodies on which consultations took place prior to Royal Assent, as was allowed under the legislation, and a dialogue between the Department and the Select Committee might be necessary to ensure that we achieve an acceptable result.
	I know that the hon. Lady, on behalf of the Committee that she chairs, has been having such a dialogue with the Department that her Committee shadows, and I am more than happy to assist in any way that I can to ensure that we have a satisfactory outcome. I have given that assurance in correspondence with the Chair of the Liaison Committee, and I am very happy to repeat it today. The guidance to Departments will be very clear about what is expected of them in the execution of their duties under that part of the 2011 Act, and on that basis I hope my assurance is helpful to the hon. Lady. This is a new procedure, and we need to watch all new procedures very carefully to ensure that they achieve the results that the House expects of them.
	In conclusion, I assure the House that I will monitor the procedure’s operation carefully to ensure that the concerns of Committees about matters on which they have sought assurances are fully responded to. I have reiterated today that the Government are very happy for the operation of the new arrangements to be reviewed about a year after they come into operation. This is an opportunity to enhance the House's scrutiny of secondary legislation, and on that basis Members should welcome it. I commend the motion to the House.

Angela Smith: The motion lays down the process for the Select Committee scrutiny that will be required when the powers enabled by the Public Bodies Act 2011 are exercised—legislation that we opposed, as the House knows, on its Third Reading in October.
	At that time, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) made it clear that we agree that the “quango state”, as he put it, should be kept under review, and that the Opposition do not oppose the removal of quangos that have served their purpose. He went on, however, to say that
	“Ministers have been fair-minded”—
	and it is important to put that on the record once again—
	“but the truth is that this whole process has been ramshackle. Giving Ministers the power to strike down organisations without there being proper parliamentary scrutiny is the worst kind of government; that simply does not meet the high standards this House should expect.”—[Official Report, 25 October 2011; Vol. 534, c. 277.]
	First, and most fundamentally, therefore, the motion before us is based on deeply flawed legislation, as this Government demonstrated with the forced reversal of their decision on the chief coroner.
	Secondly, the motion touches on only one aspect of the scrutiny required of draft orders, but the issues involved are wide-ranging—a point that the Chair of the Liaison Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), made in his letter to the Deputy Leader of the House in December. He went on in that letter to seek assurances on a wide range of issues. The Deputy Leader of the House initially responded to the concerns raised in December, only a day before this motion was originally scheduled for debate on the Floor of the House. One can only wonder why that business was cancelled at such short notice. Needless to say, a further letter in response to the representations of the Chair of the Liaison Committee was provided on 13 January.
	The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed had raised in correspondence the need for an assurance that the Government would not seek to overturn a Select Committee’s recommendation for an extension of the time required to report back on a draft order. The Deputy Leader of the House stated in his initial response that it was “very unlikely” that such a request would be turned down, but made it clear that if the Government disagreed with a request for more time, they would expect the House to acquiesce. I suggest that that was a rather dismissive approach to the right of this House to ensure that adequate time is available for Select Committee scrutiny of such important proposals. In his further letter, the Deputy Leader of the House gave a “personal assurance” that he would make representations to ministerial colleagues, as appropriate, to seek their co-operation. That is not exactly a robust mechanism for guaranteeing that the time judged necessary by a Select Committee for the scrutiny of draft orders is available.
	The Deputy Leader of the House also refused in his first response to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed to guarantee that the Government would accede to a Select Committee’s request for the debate on a draft order to take place on the Floor of the House, rather than in a Delegated Legislation Committee. In his further response, however, he stated that
	“the recommendation of a select committee as to the appropriate forum for debate should be viewed as a representation of especial importance for the reasons you set out.”
	It will be noted that, even now, there is no firm assurance on that point, only warm words that allow the Government to defy the views of any Select Committee on this point if they so wish.
	The responses of the Deputy Leader of the House have deepened the conviction of Opposition Members that the Government are intent on using their powers
	to force through proposals to abolish quangos without adequate scrutiny by this House. In particular, the refusal to give firm assurances that debates on orders will take place on the Floor of the House when the relevant Select Committee recommends it is shocking and only goes to show that we have a Government intent on getting their own way, regardless of the democratic rights of Members of this House.
	The route of this legislation through Parliament was unsatisfactory and the proposals before us only provide further evidence of how inadequate the safeguards are as against the extent of the powers that are being given to the Executive. As I said earlier, this procedure allows for the reversal of primary legislation. It effectively means that bodies such as the Agricultural Wages Board could be abolished on the back of a debate in a Delegated Legislation Committee. That would potentially mean the loss of £90 million to the rural high street. Given that the impact of these powers could be felt by thousands of people who may lose their jobs as a consequence, it is utterly unacceptable to Opposition Members that such decisions be made in this way.
	We fear that the powers made available to the House to scrutinise the decisions made by the Government under the Public Bodies Act 2011 are inadequate. With the will of the House, we will seek to press the motion to a Division.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome this little debate and the measured approach of the Deputy Leader of the House. I know that he is aware of the interest in this matter of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which I have the honour to chair. We are enthusiastic about the possibility of scrutinising such draft orders.
	I understand that their lordships had sight of the proposals at an earlier stage, and therefore more time to consider them. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, brought that to the attention of the Deputy Leader of the House.
	I should like to raise a couple of substantive points, if I may. The Deputy Leader of the House adequately addressed my concern, and that of my Select Committee, about the procedures to be followed when a Department and a Secretary of State fall short of making any formal commitment to meet the desired time frame. I would welcome guidance from him about what is the appropriate forum for scrutiny and who will take the decision to have such scrutiny.
	The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee was informed by the Secretary of State—I suppose one would say formally—on 15 January that three orders would be laid before the House in February. I understand that the Committee’s role will be to indicate its desire and intention to scrutinise an order within 30 days. We would like confirmation that when a public body falls within the work of a departmental Committee, it will be for that Committee to scrutinise an order rather than a Delegated Legislation Committee.
	I will take a specific example, which is the transfer of functions of British Waterways to the new Canal and River Trust. I do not want to pre-empt in any way what conclusion and considered view the Environment, Food
	and Rural Affairs Committee might reach on that having taken advice and evidence from witnesses, but what would happen if the Committee felt that it was a matter of such importance that we wished it to be debated on the Floor of the House? Will the Deputy Leader of the House be good enough to indicate whether that would be possible? Would a Committee be empowered to make such a recommendation, and who would take it forward?
	The Deputy Leader of the House referred to the savings to be made. I am sure that the estimate of £2.6 billion is a conservative one, and I would hazard a guess that most of those savings will come through the disappearance of arm’s length bodies, including those accountable to DEFRA. However, we thought that the Commission for Rural Communities was going to disappear, but many of its officials have been absorbed into a unit of the Department and the CRC still exists. What scrutiny can a departmental Select Committee such as the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee carry out of that aspect of the matter?
	As the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) indicated, the draft orders give Departments a huge power to disband a particular arm’s length public body once and for all time. I know that many arguments were made in the other place in favour of public bodies remaining, and some of those bodies are now not to be removed. It was a pity that we did not have a chance to have such a debate in this House.
	Within one month, the Committee will be asked to look at two other draft orders: one to abolish the Inland Waterways Advisory Council and one on the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) raised the work load of departmental Select Committees. I pay tribute to those with whom I have honour to serve on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and I am delighted that we will welcome two new Opposition Members to it this coming week, but considering three such significant draft orders in one month is a tall order, as I hope the Deputy Leader of the House agrees.
	The Deputy Leader of the House might confirm that most of the draft orders under the secondary legislation, which gives immense powers to one Department, is trundling along at a time when the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is doing significant work on the natural environment White Paper and expecting a draft Bill on water—yesterday the Prime Minister confirmed that we can expect comprehensive legislation on water in the new parliamentary Session. We are also taking evidence on common agricultural policy reforms and reaching our conclusions on common fisheries policy reform. Those two reports are significant—we are asked to look at those matters once every 10 years—and I am delighted to say the Committee has taken them very seriously and responsibly.
	We will hopefully be able discharge our duties on draft orders under the new powers, but—I am seeking guidance from the Deputy Leader of the House—if we are given only one month to lay the order and 60 days to look at it, we will come under enormous pressure to meet our duties, which I am sure colleagues on the Committee would wish to do.
	I think I have raised all the issues and the Deputy Leader of the House and Mr Speaker are aware of our concerns. I am delighted that the motion has attracted
	cross-party support, and I hope the Committee can have significant leeway in the timetable accorded to it to enable us to undertake our proper function of holding the Department to account on the draft orders.

Jonathan Edwards: I am pleased to participate in this debate on the scrutiny of draft orders on public bodies having spoken on Second Reading of the Public Bodies Act 2011. I was unfortunately unable to make as significant a contribution as I had wished to the progression of the Act because amendments that I tabled on Report were not selected, and because amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) that were selected were not reached before the guillotine.
	Our purpose today is to discuss the scrutiny of draft orders on public bodies listed in schedules 1 to 5 to the 2011 Act in accordance with sections 11(5) and (6). The intention of introducing such scrutiny is that Select Committees will be charged with making recommendations and reporting on draft orders. That appears to have been agreed in correspondence between the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), in his position as Chair of the Liaison Committee, and the Deputy Leader of the House, who was responsible for the progression of the Act.
	The argument is that those public bodies are under the control of specific Departments, and that the Select Committees that scrutinise those Departments contain experts on their operation, and should be tasked with the examination of the proposals. That appears to be a sensible course.
	The subsequent suggestion is that members of the Select Committee charged with reporting on the draft proposals will be included in any Delegated Legislation Committee convened to consider them. Again, ensuring a level of expertise appears to be a sensible course, but I would like to raise the issue of territoriality. Inside a single unitary state in which there is a single point of responsibility and accountability, the proposed mechanisms would make a great deal of sense, but I contend, and I am sure the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) would agree, that the practical elements of devolution mean that we must also consider alternative options when we deal with the potential impact of such draft orders. I welcome the opening remarks of the Deputy Leader of the House—he said that he has an open mind on that.
	For example, the National Consumer Council, which is also known as Consumer Focus, is included in schedule 1 of the Act. As hon. Members might be aware, the Welsh Affairs Committee, of which I am a proud member—as is the hon. Member for Ceredigion—published a report as recently as last week on its inquiry into the representation of consumer interests in Wales. I have no problem whatever with the UK Government’s aims in giving enhanced roles to the citizens advice service following the scrapping of the National Consumer Council, and there are many clear, tangible benefits to combining advice and advocacy functions. However, I am concerned that the level of consumer advocacy functions currently provided to the people of Wales will be lost.
	As I said, this is a territorial argument, which is based on the fact that devolution means that we do not have a single jurisdiction, but several. As a Welsh nationalist, I
	believe it should be for the Welsh Government, rather than the UK Government, to determine what consumer advice and advocacy structures they want, particularly if the current structures are to be abolished. The lack of consideration we have witnessed from UK Ministers regarding the Act’s impact on Wales further strengthens my convictions.
	It is interesting that the UK Government’s preferred structure does not impact on Scotland and Northern Ireland, which have separate citizens advice bodies because responsibility for such functions is devolved for our Celtic cousins. The fact that we in Wales find ourselves in our current position as a result of the Act is a further reminder of the hotch-potch nature of the devolution settlement across the British state and of the dangers that Wales confronts when faced with an inferior settlement. That is why scrutiny of any changes proposed in the draft orders is so important.
	Given the reality of a distinct Welsh political agenda, Citizens Advice Cymru has, remarkably, punched above its weight over the years, but it is a fact that Citizens Advice as a whole regards the Welsh context as an afterthought. That is hardly surprising, considering that the key policy levers remain reserved down here in Westminster.
	Consumer Focus Wales, on the other hand, has a tremendous research capacity, with some incredibly gifted staff, but it is nearly wholly dependent on other bodies and on commissioned research for the evidence on which it bases its reports. Consumer Focus Wales is very much an equal partner, and it has a more federal approach to England and Wales relations.
	There are many benefits, therefore, to empowering Citizens Advice with the functions of Consumer Focus Wales, if all Consumer Focus Wales functions and resources are transferred to Citizens Advice Cymru. Indeed, during the Second Reading of the Act, I impressed on Ministers the fact that there was strong support in Wales for advice and advocacy functions to be brought within one body, and I hope that that will be reflected in the draft orders, when they are brought forward for scrutiny.
	With the devolution of large areas of consumer policy already having taken place, and the likelihood of more in the years to come, the natural conclusion would be an independent Citizens Advice Cymru, but who will make that argument or question it in scrutiny of the UK Government’s proposals? That is the point I am trying to make.
	Proposals for the National Consumer Council’s abolition will go to the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills, on which there is not a single Welsh MP. The same is true in the case of S4C, whose management organisation will be changed as a result of being included in schedule 3 to the Act. Following agreements between the BBC and S4C, those changes are expected to be agreed.

Mark Williams: Does that not point to the issue I raised with my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House about joint scrutiny and joint working between Committees? The hon. Gentleman has made a compelling case regarding the independence of advocacy services in
	Wales—the kind of case some of us, as he rightly said, would have liked to make in the Public Bodies Bill Committee had we had more time. There would, however, be an opportunity for those of us on the Welsh Affairs Committee, working with the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, to make such points. Surely that is the way forward.

Jonathan Edwards: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that constructive intervention, and I fully agree. I will go on to make the same point. I often find myself in complete agreement with him, and I remind him that there is plenty of room on these Benches if he wants to cross the Floor.
	There remains a real need for scrutiny. Like the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport does not feature a single Member representing a seat in Wales. Given the importance of S4C to Wales, which members of the Public Bodies Bill Committee will know of, there really must be more scrutiny in this place than just that provided by a Public Bill Committee.
	In the Public Bodies Bill Committee, the Minister agreed that S4C governance changes
	“will be subject to consultation with absolutely everybody who has a legitimate interest in it, and I happy to reiterate that that will include the Welsh Government.”––[Official Report, Public Bodies Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2011; c. 195.]
	I welcome that commitment. I do not wish to go through the whole list of public bodies and make suggestions—[Interruption.] I know that hon. Members want to make the journey back to their constituencies. I am not going to suggest how all these matters might be perceived differently through the prism of devolution, but what, for example, would happen to the excess land of BRB (Residuary) Ltd? Should that be at the disposal of the Welsh Transport Minister?
	Although I fully understand the reasons behind the proposed means of scrutinising draft orders, I request that issues of territoriality and devolution be taken into consideration. I do not pretend to have the solution and neither do I wish to encumber ourselves with more work, but perhaps a settlement could be found in which Select Committees scrutinise draft orders if they are considered relevant to their work, and subsequently, perhaps, its members could be made members of any Delegated Legislation Committees. I can certainly imagine that members of the Welsh Affairs Committee would show a particular interest in the case of S4C and Consumer Focus Wales.

David Heath: With the leave of the House, I should like to thank Members for that short debate.
	I shall deal with the points made in reverse order, and turn first to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). He will be aware that the Committee discussed the Welsh aspects of these bodies an awful lot—I remember detailed discussions of the merits, or otherwise, of Pobol y Cwm and so on. I absolutely understand the locus that regionality has in some of the bodies. The suggestion is that the departmental Select Committees have that trigger—I think that he understands that—but he made a perfectly valid point:
	where there is a strong territorial element in the body in question, the trigger should be exercised in the knowledge of the effect it would have in an area.
	I would expect the Welsh Affairs Committee to play a part in matters relating directly to Wales and to make early representations to the relevant Select Committee, encouraging it to pull the trigger for the 60-day process. Once that process was in place and the scrutiny period under way, however, I would expect the Committee to produce a short report, particularly on matters relating to Sianel Pedwar Cymru but also on other things in which it has an interest. The report would be treated as a representation under section 11(6)(a) of the Public Bodies Act, and the Minister would have to have regard to it.
	I think I can assure the hon. Gentleman, therefore, that the Welsh Affairs Committee would have a direct locus in intervening to make the House aware of its concerns. Although the Public Bodies Act stipulates that there may be a delegated powers Committee, we have made it abundantly clear that if a request was made for the matter to be dealt with on the Floor of the House it would normally be acceded to. In that case, all Members with an interest would have an opportunity to participate and make their views known before the House finally reached a decision. I hope that that goes some way to assuaging his concerns and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), who is an utterly reasonable chap. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman agrees with him so often.
	The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) expressed a number of concerns on behalf of her Committee, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which, again, I well understand. It so happens that her Committee has an early rush, as it were, on the provisions in the legislation, because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs plans to make early proposals, as she said, on British Waterways, the Inland Waterways Advisory Council and the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances.
	Let me say first that, yes, if the House accepts this Standing Order today, the hon. Lady’s Committee will be the relevant Committee. Therefore, she has that trigger in her hands—or the hands of her Committee—for extended scrutiny. I understand that that will involve a reasonable work load for her Committee. I sympathise with her about that, but I believe it is better for her Committee to do that work rather than somebody else, elsewhere in the House, who knows nothing about the subject. There is no limitation on what Committees can scrutinise in their role as departmental Select Committees. That extends not just to bodies that are listed in schedules, but to those where there are no changes. If there are no changes, she will not be acting under this procedure, but her Committee will still have the capacity to consider the matter.
	I understand the hon. Lady’s point about the House of Lords having its arrangements in place earlier than the House of Commons. I would have liked to introduce things earlier, but it was important to have the conversation and dialogue with the Select Committees of this House, through the Liaison Committee and the Procedure Committee, to ensure that we got it right. This House has a much more complex Committee structure than the Lords—we have departmental Committees—so a
	slight asymmetry in the way we did that was inevitable. However, I hope that I can persuade her that what we are doing in this case is probably the best way forward.
	As far as the hon. Member for Penistone and Stockbridge (Angela Smith) is concerned—

Angela Smith: Stocksbridge.

David Heath: Is that not what I said? I do apologise: Stocksbridge. Speaking as someone whose constituency name is almost always mispronounced, I have the greatest sympathy if the hon. Lady has the same problem.
	I was disappointed by what the hon. Lady said. She seems to be taking up the concerns of the Liaison Committee, even though I have satisfied the Liaison Committee. The fact that it is content with my proposals is not good enough for her. She still thinks that the Liaison Committee ought to be more upset than it is. Well it is not: the Liaison Committee is satisfied with our proposals. She adduced the “mystery” of why the matter was not put before the House in December, but I made it perfectly plain that the reason was a problem with the motion, which was down to an administrative error. However, given that we could not propose the motion on that day, I aimed to derive what I hoped would be some benefit from the delay by saying that it gave us more time to explore and satisfy the concerns of the Liaison Committee and the Procedure Committee, and that is exactly what we did.
	I have given clear indications about the procedures that we will adopt to ensure that Committees are not disadvantaged, but have the opportunity to make their cases properly. However, at the end of the day, I cannot go against the legislation. I cannot rip up legislation that this House and the other House passed so recently and say, “Right, we’ll now have a completely different procedure.” However, I can work within the legislation to maximise scrutiny by the Committees of this House and the wider House and ensure that every Member has the opportunity to have their say. I believe that that is what we have put before the House today, after consultation with the Committees, and I urge the House to support the motion.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 257, Noes 176.

Question accordingly agreed to.

National Policy Statement for Ports

[Relevant documents: The Fifth Report from the Transport  Committee, Session 2009-10, on t he proposal for a National Policy Statement on Ports, HC 217, and the Government’ s response thereto.]
	Debate resumed.
	Question (29 November) again proposed,
	That this House takes note of and approves the National Policy Statement for Ports, which was laid before this House on 24 October 2011.

Therese Coffey: I am pleased to be able to contribute briefly to the final part of a debate on which the House embarked back in November. There could be no better port with which to end it than the port of Felixstowe, which is in my constituency.
	I support the Government’s market-based approach to ports, but I want them to receive one message loud and clear, namely that ports should be treated consistently and allowed a level playing field. I believe that the Minister supports that view. Liverpool recently secured £30 million of regional growth funds for help with dredging. I do not resent the recognition that my home city, where I grew up, needs a bit of support to bring about regeneration and create jobs. We must make sure, however, that such—how can I put this?—gifts are targeted so that they do not discourage private investors at other ports around the country.
	It is also important that we have joined-up thinking with other policy statements on rail and road. We have some great ports in our country, but we need to ensure that once the containers and so on come off the boats, we have great networks to move the containers around the country.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She raised similar points yesterday in Westminster Hall in a debate on the port of Southampton and I was very reassured by the Minister’s comments in response. Was she also reassured?

Therese Coffey: I was very reassured, but I am merely trying to re-emphasise that we must ensure that Departments work together, whether that means that the Department for Transport works with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or with the Department for Communities and Local Government, to ensure that the UK economy as a whole can benefit from fantastic ports. I also support the coastal shipping initiative, which I know my hon. Friend the Minister is championing.
	In the adjourned debate, my hon. Friend the Members for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) and for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) mentioned nature issues and habitat directives. I share many of their sentiments, as we need to have an appropriate balance, but that does not mean that everything should be swept aside. Just next door to my own port is an area of outstanding natural beauty: 1% of the world’s sea pea happens to be right there alongside a heritage asset, a Napoleonic fort. Although we must be mindful of the need to ensure that such things do not get in the way of port development, successful ports can have
	both. In fact, birds are attracted to the cranes and so on, so the area has become a rather distinguished twitching zone where people can go and spot rare birds.
	I want to emphasise today the significant concerns about the implementation of marine conservation zones and reference areas. Those are new ventures for our country and although I am not against them at all, we hear that DEFRA and Natural England want to work with existing businesses but are very quiet when it comes to talking about new business and replacement activities.
	We have great champions for shipping in the Minister and in the shadow Minister, as I know from his previous service. Long may that continue, because ports are what keep this country going.

Michael Penning: With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will conclude the debate that started on 29 November, speak about some of the issues raised in that debate and respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who has one of the country’s great ports in her constituency.
	Ports are such a significant part of the economy of this country that it was right and proper that so many Members of this House took the debate so seriously. I understand why some colleagues are not present this afternoon, as they made their contributions on the day. The Select Committee on Transport and its Chair, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), have also taken ports particularly seriously in this Parliament and the documents and strategy under consideration today show the significance that the new coalition Government attach to ports.
	The huge ports, such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend and the great port of Dover—I could mention all the great ports throughout the country, as they are hugely significant and we are a great maritime nation—and the small ports are very significant to our constituencies around the country. By weight, 96% of all products brought into the country come in through our ports.
	We are a great maritime nation and I am very proud, as the shipping Minister, to be responsible for dealing with the red ensign, the shipping industry and the problems of piracy on the high seas, which is one of the most significant issues that I have dealt with in the past 18 months. I have worked on that with the International Maritime Organisation, and I want to take this opportunity to welcome the new secretary-general of the IMO to his extremely important post. I became a good friend of the outgoing secretary-general and we will host a dinner for him here in the House of Commons. I hope the shadow Minister will be here for that—if the invitation has not yet arrived, it is in the post.
	Our previous debate served to demonstrate the importance of ports not only in economic terms, but for leisure. As highlighted in a Westminster Hall debate yesterday, there is often controversy about changes to ports, such as harbour revision orders. However, we need growth to get out of the economic mire the coalition Government inherited, and for that to happen we must use the best modes of transport.
	We will always need our roads, and significant investment is going into our road system—almost £3 billion in the next three years. We also need to carry more freight on rail, and we are achieving that, too. However, there is a capacity issue, particularly on the west coast main line. That is one of the reasons why High Speed 2 is so important; it will free up capacity.
	We also need to think again about our ports. The ships coming into our ports are getting ever bigger, and we must work out how we can get their vast cargos around our country, as our transport networks will struggle to cope. Some goods will be carried by rail, but most will go by road. We must also use coastal shipping, however, and we should use the ports in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal and the new Gateway port on the Thames as hubs to promote a renaissance in coastal shipping in this country.
	Happily, that has already started, but we must remain united in Parliament and continue to promote this move. It is the environmentally friendly way of regenerating the economy and bringing jobs to port areas where previously, perhaps, many were employed but which have recently struggled economically.
	When ports are altered and harbour revision orders are made, environmental issues must always be addressed. The Marine Management Organisation has a vital role to play in that. We must not, of course, just bulldoze in, but the habitats directive has been a problem in respect of developing our ports. The directive is therefore being reviewed. The findings will be reported in March, and they will be significant for the future of the ports of our country.
	The Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, has just entered the Chamber, and I welcome her. She will not have heard this, but I have already praised her Committee extensively. I probably will not have time to do so again.

Sarah Newton: I represent the small ports of Falmouth and Truro, and they have terrific potential to deliver on the agenda the Minister is articulating so well. Will he let us have the names and addresses of the people involved in the review of the UK interpretation of the EU habitats directive being undertaken by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as Members are struggling to find that information and we want to make representations to those people?

Michael Penning: I will certainly make that point to DEFRA. I have had the privilege of visiting Falmouth and listening to the issues and concerns there. It is a smallish—although not very small—port, but it is hugely significant, especially in my hon. Friend’s part of the country, and it can clearly contribute a lot. I pay tribute to the work being done there.
	I will not rehearse all the points that were made in our earlier debate, but before I close this debate I want to say that this Government are taking the future of our ports, both large and small, very seriously. We have big decisions to make over the next few months and years on matters that can greatly help the growth of the economy and help us get out of the mess we inherited 18 months ago.
	Question put and agreed to.

Business of the House

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Wednesday 25 January, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), the Private Business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means shall be entered upon (whether before, at or after 4.00 pm), and may then be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, after which the Speaker shall interrupt the business.—(Stephen Crabb.)

THAMES RIVER CROSSINGS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stephen Crabb.)

Jackie Doyle-Price: I am delighted to have so much available time to discuss future Thames crossings, but perhaps in deference to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall not use all of it.
	Clearly, this is an extremely important issue for London, and for south Essex, north Kent and beyond, because the proposed crossings will add significantly to the nation’s infrastructure. The proposals generate a number of issues of particular pertinence to my constituents. I wish to raise those issues in the House today and to make some representations to the Minister. For many years there has been a need for additional capacity and more river crossings across the Thames, and, as with buses, two end up coming along at once.
	I welcome the Government’s commitment to these additional crossings, and I am particularly supportive of the east London river crossing, a proposal being led by the Mayor of London and to which the Chancellor gave his backing in the autumn statement. However, perhaps of more relevance to my constituents are the proposals for a new crossing in the lower Thames, with the objective of alleviating congestion at Dartford. Achieving that objective has been long overdue, but the crossing proposals being examined are at present little more than lines on a map and I wish to put on the record some points that I would like the Minister and the Department to examine as they develop the options.
	People in Thurrock are particularly worried about the impact that any new proposals will have on our road network. I am well aware that although the Department for Transport will be looking at the new crossing as part of the national road infrastructure, its impact will be local and will be felt by my constituents, so it is extremely important that the impact is fully considered. As the Member representing the constituency that sits on the north bank of the Dartford crossing, I have to say that this issue generates more correspondence in my postbag than any other, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) has a similar experience. My constituents have to deal daily with the consequences of congestion generated by the Dartford crossing, and by the M25 and the A13. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) in his place, and I know that he shares my frustrations with the A13 as much as anyone.
	The existing Thames crossings are clearly not going to be adequate in the long term, particularly given the potential for economic growth in the locality—in east London and throughout the Thames Gateway—and given the projected increases in traffic volumes more generally. The constraints afforded by the road network in Thurrock and the volumes of traffic using the Dartford crossing are putting real economic opportunities in Thurrock at risk. Although some of the congestion generated by the Dartford crossing, which we are experiencing on a daily basis, ought to be mitigated by the proposal for a new lower Thames crossing, this rather depends on where the new crossing is sited and how it will connect with the existing road network. Given that the three options under consideration pass
	through Thurrock, this is an issue of very real concern and it is causing considerable disquiet among my constituents. We seek reassurance from the Minister that he will ensure not only that the new crossing will alleviate congestion at Dartford, but that it will not cause us additional problems on the road network in Thurrock.
	On the case for more crossings generally, the Government have articulated the importance of appropriate transport infrastructure as a foundation for economic growth and that proposition has to be unarguable. I have no doubt but that the inadequacy of current provision is holding back economic development. There are simply insufficient crossings east of Tower bridge; that is shown starkly if one looks at an aerial photograph of London. It is clear that that is holding back the capability of east London and the Thames Gateway to realise their full potential for economic growth. If we have any real ambitions for economic development to shift east, it is crucial that we put in decent road infrastructure.
	Looking at current provision, one sees that the Blackwall tunnel and the Dartford crossing are at capacity and that the capacity provided by the Rotherhithe tunnel and the Woolwich ferry are inadequate to provide resilience to the road network. As a result, when either Blackwall or Dartford is closed, as happens all too frequently either because of maintenance or due to an incident, the consequent congestion causes misery to motorists.

Gareth Johnson: My hon. Friend knows more than most just how severe the congestion is at both Dartford and Thurrock, and she and I both welcome the fact that the Department for Transport is prioritising tackling the congestion at the Dartford-Thurrock crossing. Does she agree that Dartford and Thurrock residents have had more than their fair share of Thames crossings and that if there is to be a further bridge over the river Thames, we should look elsewhere for its location?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I do agree. That is why I am so keen to see another crossing in east London. It has always been my view that many of the journeys across the Dartford crossing take place because there is no other crossing between Blackwall and Dartford. A new crossing would alleviate some of the congestion at Dartford, because it would no longer be the only show in town for London orbital journeys. We need to look at where demand comes from. A big user category is HGV traffic from Dover and we need to look creatively at how we can divert some of that traffic away from Dartford and alleviate congestion there.
	As I was saying, the congestion that is caused when one of the crossings is closed is causing misery for motorists, but more importantly it results in significant costs for businesses; they count the costs of the consequences of congestion. That is a particular concern in Thurrock, which is becoming a major logistics hub. It is interesting that this debate follows one on ports, because the growth of the port sector in Thurrock is phenomenal and hugely exciting. In addition to the new port at London Gateway, we have the port of Tilbury, which has gone through 125 years and is expanding, and the Cobelfret port at Purfleet, which has a roll-on/roll-off facility that
	is expanding. That is supporting a massive increase in job opportunities in the logistics sector and highlights the importance of getting Thurrock’s road network moving.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. There is consensus across the House that there are not enough crossings east of Tower bridge. Given what she has just said about the London Gateway port mentioned by the Minister in the previous debate, as well as the idea for a Thames estuary airport, which is all over the papers this morning because of Boris Johnson’s comments in The Daily Telegraph, and given that the centre of gravity in London has been moving east for the past 20 years and will continue to do so, does she think that, if we have the money, two crossings just would not cut it and that we would need four or even six?

Nigel Evans: Order. Before the hon. Lady responds may I remind the shadow Minister that any interventions in an Adjournment debate should be made from the Back Benches?

Jim Fitzpatrick: My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I am grateful for the opportunity to address that point. I have been less than compromising in my attitude towards the Thames estuary airport, but I think the hon. Gentleman's point about more crossings is that we need a much more long-term approach to our national road infrastructure. I remind him that his Government looked at this issue in 2009 but parked it because it was too difficult. When we consider road infrastructure issues, there is often a natural nimby tendency. We all want to represent our voters’ interests, but we need the courage to have the debate and think about what is really important for the long term. If we do not have that, we will be putting much-needed jobs at risk, and we cannot afford to do that right now. Generally, I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that we must look at where the traffic need is likely to be in the long term.
	However, as my hon. Friend the Minister said in his statement on ports policy, taking into account where shipping will arrive in the future can open up opportunities to reduce road journeys. We need to look creatively at how we move things around, taking a joined-up approach. The issue of the airport is interesting because, if truth be known, that debate has been taking place, championed by its enthusiasts, without any thought as to the impact on shipping and wider infrastructure outside London.

Mark Reckless: We heard yesterday very little support for the Thames estuary airport proposition, but one proposal has been floated, with very little detail to it, by Lord Foster, which would cost at least £50 billion. He is looking to include a bridge, a barrage and various other things. Can my hon. Friend confirm that that is an absolutely preposterous proposal?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I am on record as describing that proposal as pie in the sky, and I have not seen anything to change that opinion.
	Getting back to the issue of crossings rather than airports, we clearly need more crossings east of Blackwall, and I am delighted that the Minister is not going to duck the issue for a moment longer and that firm proposals will be made. I am not quite sure that I will entirely like what he has to propose, but we have already had a number of robust exchanges on this and I am sure there will be many more.
	As I mentioned, the priority must be a new crossing in east London. One can see, just by driving through it, as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse would confirm, that what has really been missing is a link between the north and south circulars. That will unlock opportunities in east London. The area between the ExCeL centre and London city airport is within minutes of central London and it is staggering that it has not really benefited from more development. I am therefore delighted that the Government have put their support behind the Mayor of London’s proposal for the new crossing linking Greenwich and Silvertown. I gather that the tunnel will have the capacity to carry up to 2,500 vehicles an hour—a significant increase in capacity, but not enough. As I said, I believe the crossing will divert some of the congestion from Dartford, and since the Mayor of London is determined to complete the crossing within a decade, it is obviously an extremely positive development for the capital and for road users within the M25.
	I know, however, that the Minister’s main priority is the new crossing in the lower Thames. The previous Government also concluded that such a crossing was necessary. I gather that on every working day the Dartford crossing is operating at capacity, and because of those volumes, even with the removal of toll barriers and the introduction of free flow and the consequent increase in capacity that that will deliver, by 2031 the crossing will be at capacity again. Given how long it takes for this country to build major infrastructure projects, clearly we must make a decision now if we are to be ready to meet those future demands.
	As I said, although I welcome the crossing, its ultimate location is of central importance to my constituents in Thurrock. Although, as far as the Department is concerned, the Dartford crossing is part of the national road infrastructure, its impact is local. It causes air quality consequences for my constituents. It causes congestion, particularly when there are queues to access the crossing at junction 30/31 of the M25, and I take the opportunity to remind the Minister that improvements to that junction are extremely necessary to maximise the efficiency of the existing road network. That is also felt by the business community, given the importance of the logistics industry and the opportunities for job creation in that sector. The need to ensure that traffic moves will determine the degree to which the local economy can grow.
	I shall run through some of the options, to get on record some of the concerns that my constituents have. One option is to link Gravesend and East Tilbury; I believe it is being championed by Kent county council. That option has aroused considerable opposition from my constituents. It would require the destruction of huge swathes of green belt in Thurrock to make way for a new motorway. As Thurrock already hosts the M25, the Dartford crossing and the A13, residents are extremely unhappy at the prospect of more green belt being dug up to build new roads, and the Thurrock Gazette recently
	collected many thousands of signatures for a petition to that effect which I presented to the House last year. I recall that when the previous Government looked at that option it had the weakest business case for alleviating congestion at Dartford.
	Another option is for a crossing between Swanscombe and Tilbury. This would have the advantage of joining an existing road that has some spare capacity, but there is a serious question over whether it could cope with the capacity generated by a new crossing. The third option is for an additional crossing at Dartford. This is perhaps the one that generates the most concern, given the volume of traffic we currently struggle with. Given that the M25 is being widened to five lanes in each direction, it is clear that the traffic will bottleneck at Dartford, where the provision is only four lanes in each direction.
	We desperately need the improvements that the changes at junction 30 will deliver to deal with the current situation, as the existing road infrastructure cannot support current volumes, let alone an additional crossing adjacent to the existing one. We need an assurance from the Minister that the consequences for Thurrock will be fully considered as the Government review the options. Given Thurrock’s position as a logistics hub, the road infrastructure simply must function adequately so that our traffic can get around.
	There will of course be massive benefits if new infrastructure can be achieved, but I would like to put on the record three criteria that I would like the Minister to take on board when considering the options. We want assurances: first, that the new crossing will not result in the destruction of Thurrock’s green belt for the purpose of constructing new motorways; secondly, that it will not add additional traffic volumes to our already overcrowded road network; and thirdly, that it will alleviate congestion at the Dartford crossing. Clearly, the degree to which the new crossing interacts with the existing road network will determine the degree to which congestion is alleviated. Without these assurances, there will be extremely strong opposition in Thurrock to a new crossing.
	There are a number of other issues, and perhaps myths, that the Minister needs to address as the debate moves forward. Many of my constituents believe that the new crossing should be further east, effectively creating a new outer circular. It is difficult to see where such a crossing could be constructed, given the width of the Thames further along the estuary and the cost implications that that would have for a new crossing, be it a tunnel or bridge, but it is important that those options are considered before they are rejected or accepted. I have also mentioned that much of the demand is generated by the volume of heavy goods vehicle traffic from Dover, so we need to be imaginative about how we can divert some of that away from the crossing, not only by having a new crossing, but perhaps by transporting more by ship.
	Finally, my constituents often tell me that there would be no need for an additional crossing if the tolls were removed. They believe that the toll barriers are the principal source of congestion. I do not believe that their removal is a solution for the long term, but the Government need to make the case for why expansion is necessary so that we take everyone with us on the need to invest in this road infrastructure. I look forward to the Minister’s comments. I am sure that this will not be
	the last time we debate the matter, but having the debate is important because, ultimately, it will lead to a better final decision on where the crossing will be.

Michael Penning: It is a privilege to respond to this important debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) has secured. She is absolutely right that we have had many robust discussions on this in the House and when I visited Thurrock, and similar discussions on the other side of the river when I visited Dartford. As she knows, I am acutely aware of the situation in Thurrock, not least because I was a parliamentary candidate for the constituency in 2001 and a fireman in that part of the world for many years. Although I probably do not know the situation quite as well as she does, I did spend my teenage years in that part of the world and so understand the issues there. Many of the concerns raised with me when I was a parliamentary candidate have been raised with me on my more recent visits to Thurrock and Dartford, which is why we desperately need to have this debate and this review. My hon. Friend—he is my friend—the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), the shadow Minister, is sitting opposite me, and he knows that I hardly ever do party political stuff, but the previous Government did duck this issue, and they know that they did.
	There is a capacity issue at the crossing. We always talk about the bridge, but going north there are two tunnels, one of which is the original. I remember going through when there was only one tunnel, that is how old I am, but going north the inner tunnel is a smaller bore, which causes problems for high-sided vehicles, and that is one reason why the Government have committed themselves to looking at another crossing, either by tunnel or by bridge.
	The existing tunnels and bridge were designed for a capacity of 135,000 vehicles per day, but it has hit 180,000, and one reason why it is not even higher—businesses tell me this, as I am sure the businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency tell her—is that some businesses shy away from using the bridge. They can work in the cost of the tolls, but not the cost of the delays. For many businesses and many people, however, there is no other option.
	I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about Dover, and Dover is interesting, because it is predominantly a roll-on, roll-off port. It is not like the port of Tilbury, or like DP World’s new port—incidentally, it is about to finish the first phase of that project, and I had the privilege of being at its launch. At Dover, however, the lorries are driven on and driven off. Some are on skids, but at the end of the day the freight is on wheels, which are going to roll, and if they are going to go north from Dover there is only one way they can go.
	The crossing is significant, with Thurrock to the north, and, to digress for a second, everybody talks about it being the Dartford crossing, but that is only one side. The other side, the northern side, is clearly in Thurrock, but no one talks about the Thurrock crossing very much, apart from those who live in Thurrock, and that is something I have always picked up.
	The crossing is of national significance, however. It is part of our national motorway network, and, even though I fully understand that the Mayor of London’s proposals, which we support, will take on some capacity, I do not want to divert larger HGVs and through traffic off the motorways. That is what the motorways were designed for, why they are so successful and why they are the safest roads in the country—because they were designed for their current use. The issue is that they are very successful, so we are expanding them and sweating their assets.
	My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that both sides of the motorway are being expanded, albeit without hard-shoulder running, which is what I would have liked to have seen. The orders were signed off long before I became a Minister, and the Audit Commission said that there was a massive overspend on the project because we were not able to use the asset as we should have—either by widening the motorway and using the hard shoulder, or by using just the hard shoulder. We did not need to do both, but we could have saved an awful lot of money and spent it more wisely elsewhere.
	I am not going to be drawn into a debate about where the crossing should be, because further down the line some bright lawyer will drag me through a judicial review, stating that I have expressed a view too early on, but the business case will be significant. The infrastructure to which there is a connection, and the cost of developing it, will be hugely significant, and the effects on the environment—I am acutely aware of the green belt and the pressures on it each side of the river—will be taken into consideration.
	What will also be taken into consideration is the effect on the local communities each side of the river and, particularly, on their local road network, because if we do not do so there will be no point in us moving on from where we are today. The reason why we managed to secure significant investment from the Chancellor during the spending round was by, first, having a short-term look, today, at what we can do to alleviate the concerns of my hon. Friend’s constituents regarding pollution, in particular, and congestion. One of the biggest things on which MPs and colleagues throughout the country write to me is congestion, its environmental aspects and its knock-on effects on business .

Gareth Johnson: The Minister mentions pollution in the area around the Dartford crossing, but may I press him on noise pollution in particular? When he reviews the situation along the east Thames corridor, will he look at the surfaces on the M25 to see whether there is a way of minimising the noise pollution that emanates from those surfaces near the Dartford crossing?

Michael Penning: I was going to move on to other sorts of pollution, including light and noise. I give hon. Members an assurance that when the tarmac needs to be replaced, or the soft surface, as some people like to call it, it will be replaced with low-noise tarmac. That commitment was given by the previous Government and we have continued with it. It is fractionally more expensive, but it removes a huge blight. It is not silent, but it generates about 50% less noise than normal tarmac. The noise is an enormous amount lower than that on concrete surfaces, but the sad news is that
	concrete surfaces last much longer. They are a huge success, but the road noise from them is hugely significant.
	As I was saying, if we get this right, initially by removing the barriers and then by realigning the motorway going south where there is the dog-leg at junction 1A, people will be able to cross the river with confidence, particularly going south—I will return to the problems going north later—without having to search around for change, throw money into a pot and worry about whether the machine has counted it properly. There is currently the smart facility to go through with a DART card, which I encourage people to use. If we can get rid of the barriers, it will significantly free up time for people going through, particularly as different vehicles currently have to pay different fees. There is a debate about how much time it will save. However, that will not alleviate the problem in the long term.
	Interestingly, hauliers tell me that the better I make the Dartford crossing, the more they are likely to use it. People would also be likely to invest in the area. There is a significant ferry employer in Thurrock which owns a significant amount of land on the other side of the river in Dartford that it does not use because of the congestion on the bridge. I am not going to say that investment would immediately go up, but the indication that I have is that the congestion going north and south is inhibiting investment in that part of the world. We can alleviate the congestion, and if we do not alleviate the congestion locally, there is frankly no point in doing this. We can build into what we are doing with the removal of the barriers, thus freeing up more capacity.
	As I said, the Chancellor has given us the money to look carefully at where a new crossing could be sited. We are rightly supporting the Mayor’s new crossing, which will be excellent news for east London. However, a lot of the traffic that we are considering, particularly the growth in HGV traffic on the M25 through Dartford and Thurrock, will not go that way. That crossing will alleviate the amount of traffic to some extent, but by nowhere near enough.
	Members who were here for the previous debate know that I passionately believe that we need to grow ourselves out of the economic situation that we are in. It is right that I need to get as much traffic off the roads as possible, but there is no point in making our motorways wider and wider, managing them and getting them to flow all around the country if, in the most significant spot in the country, with HGVs unable to go anywhere else, there are barriers, toll booths and a northbound crossing that does not have anywhere near the capacity of the southbound one.
	We will consider very carefully where the new crossing should go, and we will ensure that any effects on the local infrastructure, particularly junctions 30 and 31, are addressed in the early plans. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock knows, we have looked very carefully at the protracted, but in the end successful, negotiations with DP World over those junctions. I thank DP World for its investment in UK plc. Creating 36,000 jobs in that part of the world is a massively significant boost to the economy, and if we get the crossing right it will be a boost for the economy on both sides of the bridge because a lot of people living south of the river will probably come north to work.
	If we can get the crossing right, it will be great for communities on both sides of the river environmentally and in terms of lifestyle, because they will be able to commute and do more things. It will be even better for UK plc, and if we can get it right I am determined to do so as early as possible. We need no more delays, and we have the money to do the early work. We will have long discussions with hon. Members about how the project is structured and how it can work, but UK plc needs a new crossing on the lower Thames and that is what it will get.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.